| |
Todd Lehman wrote:
> > 2) I don't want newbies going to local groups seeing that no-one posts
> > there and therefore thinking that there is no UK LEGO Community and not
> > using the local groups.
> Then we should talk about how to solve this problem.
Acknowledged. I'll work out a plan (like Richard is) and see how it
fits together then do a vote or something so everyone is more or less
happy.
> People can post wherever they feel is the most appropriate place to post.
> Sometimes the England group is going to be more appropriate than the all-of-
> UK group -- not always, of course, but sometimes. Same with Scotland or
> Northern Ireland, for example, or a smaller place.
I can understand Northern Ireland being seperate because it is only
linked by boat and plane and so getting a LEGO set from there is more
difficult. People may think it is more appropiate to post to a tiny
group but if they don't get a reply it'll be a waste when someone 5
miles away lives in a different group zone could have helped them.
> The UK population is 2x that of Canada and much of Canada is virtually
> uninhabited.
Well the amount of Canadian online LEGO people is way much bigger
because of the unmetered phone calls.
> The theory behind all of the loc groups (worldwide) is that they're city-
> based to assist in the formation of local clubs, get-togethers, local
> shopping information, etc. There's typically one city represented in each
> county or one city represented wherever there is a large population. The
> higher-level groups are really just there as a fallback for times when the
> local groups are too localised.
> Right now, since there are only about 100 or so delurked LEGO fans online in
> the UK, the top-level .loc.uk group seems to be where most people prefer to
> congregate.
100! Are you sure - this group is full of foreigners!
> Someday (and maybe it'll take another year or two), the smaller city/town
> local subgroups of .loc.uk will be more inviting as more people come online.
> The all-new and much-improved browseable web-interface structure into the
> groups (coming soon) will also greatly help people find the local groups so
> that they can decide which is the most appropriate place for them (for a
> given message or thread).
This won't help via NNTP unfortunately.
> No, it won't work from NNTP. What I do right now for the US groups is I am
> subscribed to all of them via e-mail as daily digests; that way I never miss
> anything and I don't have to subscribe to each of them as NNTP newsgroups.
> I only get mail from a group when there's a message posted to it.
Well subscribing to all the UK groups via e-mail really defeats having
separate groups (if everyone did it).
> No one should be "told" to post exclusively to the main UK group. At most,
> people should be simply *made aware* that if they don't post to the main
> group, their message may not be read by most people. It's their individual
> decision and choice.
Well people are told not to post HTML to USENET but it still happens -
some people can't read their messages because their newsreader isn't
capable. You can never really tell people to do anything but people in
the UK are good people and can take good advice when given the simple
reasoning behind it.
> I agree that we should try to figure out a way to educate people that the
> .loc.uk group is where most people have voluntarily chosen to congregate and
> that they too may wish to congregate there.
There lies the challenge.
> I'd like to hear some ideas on how we can do this (without spamming all the
> groups with imperative statements).
Not the best of my ideas I admit :-(
> It doesn't have to be one single solution either -- it could be a
> combination of things, for example
> - something for the FAQ
Unfortunately people don't read FAQs much - even if they are told to.
> - something on the webpages
It could help via the web interface but not elsewhere.
> - something that gets mailed to the poster the first time they post
> etc.
This could work if the post was very small and so not ignored.
--
Carbon 60
ICQ # 5643170
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed?
|
| Carbon 60 wrote in message <373F416C.6134A01C@b...ot.com>... (...) in (...) to (...) ;-) I think it's disgusting how many foreigners there are in a newsgroup dedicated to the Best of British. Maybe there should be a Lugnet.loc.uk.foreigners (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed?
|
| (...) I think Richard may have been suggesting the removal of certain groups, which is an extremely drastic measure and only a last resort if all else fails. What newcomers really need the most help with is: - Learning about the existence of the (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: All UK Groups subscribed?
|
| (...) Spam doesn't have to be commercial to be spam. In Usenet, what Richard did is a particular type of spam known as "excessive multiposting" (although I haven't looked yet to see whether it was a single crossposted message or the same message (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
