🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <45B8C078.3C3A569E@earthlink.net>, Arne Adolfsen
<adolfsen@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Just as I typed in the subject line, it's over -- la.eats is dead. 
> There haven't been actual messages for well over a month, and before
> that there were sparse to non-existent messages for *well* over a year. 

Fact is, Usenet in general is declining, as "blogs" and sites like Yelp
and Chowhound are getting a lot more traffic. 

Especially with younger people, who were the ones most active on Usenet
15-20 years ago (when people our age were active in the smaller number
of newsgroups then available).

I'll bet most 20-30 year-olds are oblivious to the existence of the
Usenet. Some of my 50-60 year-old friends certainly are...they've been
hearing me mention Usenet for the past couple of decades. None of them
really knows how to get to it, except through Google Groups. (Which
many seem to think _is_ the Usenet, complete with all of Google's
chatrooms and "groups" jumbled together with the other 110,000 or so
newsgroups.)

And considering how sparse the postings on la.eats were even _before_
the explosion of "foodie" blogs and sites, it's not hard to see why the
posting volume is even lower now.

Lastly, there's been _your_ role here as "Enforcer of City of Los
Angeles, Downtown Portion, Posting Rules." If someone reviews a
restaurant in Pasadena, which is closer to downtown LA than some parts
of the outlying suburbs which actually _ARE_ within LA city limits,
you're all over them with this type of wail:

"Listen, dollface, this is a group for Los Angeles, not Pasadena or
Long Beach or Thousand Oaks. Please go to _their_ newsgroup!"

And then someone will, predictably, point out that the original bunch
of folks who ate at restaurants and wrote about them, met several times
in Pasadena! Where many of them worked (JPL, as I recall). You will
then, predictably, claim you were one of the founders. Others will
then, predictably, dig up the roster of the actual group and point out
that you were not one of them....And so on. Thus sucking the life out
fo the group.

Frankly, the not-as-moribund ba.food is much more embracing of a wide
swathe of geographic territory. We have regular posters who live as far
north as Sonoma County, as far east as Livermore, and as far south as
Santa Cruz County. And reviews and comments about restaurants in Santa
Barbara, Tahoe, even San Diego, are generally welcomed...especially if
the comments come from one of the regular posters. 

Given how quiet la.eats is, do you really think the solution is to
_narrow_ the restaurants covered to just the _city_ borders? Should
there also be pasadena.eats, downey.eats, huntingtonbeach.eats,
longbeach.eats, and so on, for 50 other such cities that are
technically not part of the city of L.A.?

(Aside: About ten years ago the one or two people who posted from
Monterey, to various groups, decided that what Monterey really needed
was a whole hierarchy of their _own_ groups. The result was
predictable: they have 5 newsgroups, essentially consisting just of
spam. And with only one relevant local post every few months. Not even
worth susbscribing to.)

Frankly, it may be time to consolidate newsgroups. For example,
northerncal.food, southerncal.food, etc. Or just publicize to San
Diegans and Santa Barbarians that la.eats welcomes them, for example.

But even this will likely not staunch the exodus to other kinds of "Web
2.0" sites. 


--Tim May