🚀 go-pugleaf

kjb@usenet.catnip.org (Kevin Burnett) writes:
>On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:20:44 GMT, Dean Ruggles <deanruggles@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>Actually, crossposts, while sometimes annoying, really don't take up any
>extra bandwidth.  Crossposted articles are distributed once between news
>servers, and one copy of the article is stored on each server.

It's that "sometimes annoying" part which led to my question about whether
a South Bay topic is viewed as an encroachment on ba.transportation.  If you
look around, it was obvious that the group has traditionally been dominated
by SF & Oakland discussion.  So since the beginning of the discussion about
sbay.transportation, has been 6 weeks of recurring departure from the norm
for ba.t.

So I put question before the ba.t community (in a separate thread) whether
people want to continue to have an elevated level of discussion of South Bay
topics or not.

>That said, I am waiting to see another post to sbay.transportation that is
>not crossposted to another group.

There have been some, completely in line with the other new sbay groups.
It looks normal.  Don't forget that it takes about six months to propagate
a new newsgroup.  It's been 3 weeks.

And then... so what?  Since it's new and not everyone has it yet, I noticed
cross-posts have been a deliberate decision when appropriate for the topic
by at least one other poster besides me too.

So far sbay.transportation has been the busiest of the six newly-created sbay
groups even if you subtract articles cross-posted outside the sbay hierarchy.
If you were expecting it to spring to life as a clone of ba.t, you set your
expectations way too high.  It might never live up to that.  And that was
never its purpose.  If you include the cross-posts, it has been a lot busier
than expected, which is why it was surprising that some people made such a
big deal about it.