🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug30.211125.946@jazzie.com>, sds@jazzie.com (Sean Shapira) writes:
> [ edited ]
> Some might say, "Isn't that what seattle.general is used for?"
> Yes, but if seattle.misc existed, the content of seattle.general
> might focus just a bit more on topics of "general" interest to
> the Seattle community....  Crossposts would be fine, especially
> if the followups were directed to seattle.misc.  Personally, I
> would put seattle.misc to use quite regularly.
> 
> Comments, anyone?

I think that this naming strategy would just confuse people.  It would
result in a lot of crossposted material (or incorrectly posted stuff).

If the traffic volume on seattle.general gets large enough, I think it
is a better idea to create groups pertaining to the topic(s) that are
responsible for most of the volume.  Currently, the only topic I can
think of that would fit this description would be "seattle.politics".

--
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195

davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:

   In article <1992Aug30.211125.946@jazzie.com>, sds@jazzie.com (Sean Shapira) writes:
   > [ edited ]
   > Some might say, "Isn't that what seattle.general is used for?"
   > Yes, but if seattle.misc existed, the content of seattle.general
   > might focus just a bit more on topics of "general" interest to
   > the Seattle community....  Crossposts would be fine, especially
   > if the followups were directed to seattle.misc.  Personally, I
   > would put seattle.misc to use quite regularly.
   > 
   > Comments, anyone?
   
   I think that this naming strategy would just confuse people.  It would
   result in a lot of crossposted material (or incorrectly posted stuff).
   
   If the traffic volume on seattle.general gets large enough, I think it
   is a better idea to create groups pertaining to the topic(s) that are
   responsible for most of the volume.  Currently, the only topic I can
   think of that would fit this description would be "seattle.politics".
   
   --
   David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
   davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195

I wholeheartedly agree with David. Just scattering the postings to
multiple groups would result in a lot of incorrect postings. The creation
of seattle.politics would be the obvious volume cutter. I don't agree that
the volume is large enough to warrant any new groups, but the increasing
volume of politic'n in seattle.general might be a generating factor for
seattle.politics.
-- 
-Kevin L. Gross          klg@statsci.com           Disclaim THIS: 
 This message is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
 of the United States of America. I'm protected under the 4th, 5th and
 9th Amendments among others, or at least I used to be.

In article <klg.715279663@statsci> klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:
>davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:
>
>   In article <1992Aug30.211125.946@jazzie.com>, sds@jazzie.com (Sean Shapira) writes:
>   > [ edited ]
>   > Some might say, "Isn't that what seattle.general is used for?"
>   > Yes, but if seattle.misc existed, the content of seattle.general
>   > might focus just a bit more on topics of "general" interest to
>   > the Seattle community....  Crossposts would be fine, especially
>   > if the followups were directed to seattle.misc.  Personally, I
>   > would put seattle.misc to use quite regularly.
>   > 
>   > Comments, anyone?
>   
>   I think that this naming strategy would just confuse people.  It would
>   result in a lot of crossposted material (or incorrectly posted stuff).
>   
>   If the traffic volume on seattle.general gets large enough, I think it
>   is a better idea to create groups pertaining to the topic(s) that are
>   responsible for most of the volume.  Currently, the only topic I can
>   think of that would fit this description would be "seattle.politics".
>   
>   --
>   David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
>   davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195
>
>I wholeheartedly agree with David. Just scattering the postings to
>multiple groups would result in a lot of incorrect postings. The creation
>of seattle.politics would be the obvious volume cutter. 

Or seattle.callerid!  ;-)


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
VanOver@atc.boeing.com
       "Why don't y'all go home?"     Bette Davis in The Little Foxes
---------------------------------------------------------------------

klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:
>davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:
>   In article <1992Aug30.211125.946@jazzie.com>, sds@jazzie.com (Sean Shapira) writes:

>   > Some might say, "Isn't that what seattle.general is used for?"
>   > Yes, but if seattle.misc existed, the content of seattle.general
>   > might focus just a bit more on topics of "general" interest to
>   > the Seattle community....  Crossposts would be fine, especially
>   > if the followups were directed to seattle.misc.  Personally, I
>   > would put seattle.misc to use quite regularly.

>   I think that this naming strategy would just confuse people.  It would
>   result in a lot of crossposted material (or incorrectly posted stuff).

>   If the traffic volume on seattle.general gets large enough, I think it
>   is a better idea to create groups pertaining to the topic(s) that are
>   responsible for most of the volume.  Currently, the only topic I can
>   think of that would fit this description would be "seattle.politics".

>I wholeheartedly agree with David. Just scattering the postings to
>multiple groups would result in a lot of incorrect postings. The creation
>of seattle.politics would be the obvious volume cutter. I don't agree that
>the volume is large enough to warrant any new groups, but the increasing
>volume of politic'n in seattle.general might be a generating factor for
>seattle.politics.

There is more than just article count to be considered here.

As Bill England keeps pointing out, seattle general is distributed
to more than 10 percent (if I remember correctly) of all usenet
sites.  I did a sendsys to seattle distribution and got back 3/4
of a meg in sys files.  Many were from way outside the pnw area.
Quite a few were from Europe.  For their own reasons, a lot of
people seem to want to keep in touch with *our* :-) region.

Breaking up the seattle newsgroup(s) and creating a few new groups
would seem to be the proper thing to do.  If some people want to
cross-post among the various groups, well let them.  No harm is
done; the article only gets sent once (bandwidth).  If some sites
(dos perhaps) have to store cross-posted articles, that is their
problem, not the nets.

Since there is no formal mechanism for creating local or area news-
groups, I hereby volunteer to create any seattle newsgroups needed
and I will also send out some periodic charter/faq notices while the
newsgroups are still fairly new.

I have noticed a few articles (mis)posted to seattle.forsale, therefor
I propose creating one.  It seem a little unusual for an area not to
have a forsale group.  Here is a charter notice that I created for
such a group...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the charter for seattle.forsale.

This newsgroup was created to list *things* that you wish to sell and
*things* that you wish to purchase and *things* that you wish to trade.

Although the newsgroup is seattle, general consensus is that the 
geographical area is more like the Puget Sound area.  It would be nice
if we can keep the distribution of this newsgroup within the Puget Sound
area and not spread all over the world as seattle.general is currently.
This should help to prevent wasting bandwidth; after all how many East
Coasters are going to by a Seattle automobile?  If it is a *thing* of
truly universal desirability then cross post it to seattle.general.

Cross-postings to other appropriate area forsale newsgroups is encouraged.

While followup postings are not prohibited, they should be limited
to corrections, cancellation and pointing out errors.  General
discussions should be carried out in other more appropriate groups.

The subject line should start off with 'FOR SALE', 'WANTED', 'FOR RENT',
'YARD SALE' or other appropriate classification followed by a description
of the *thing*.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, here is a list I posted some time ago that lays out a possible
seattle hierarchy

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 92 13:19:50 PDT
Newsgroups: seattle.admin
Distribution: seattle
Subject: Newsgroups

How about the following:
 * seattle.admin          Administravia
   seattle.events         Announcements, notices etc.
   seattle.forsale        Items for sale in the area
 * seattle.general        Catchall - general postings
   seattle.politics       Political discussions
   seattle.talk           BBS style chat through a newsgroup
 * seattle.test           Testing with a few scattered auto-reply sites.  

As usual, comments are desired.

Unless I hear a general outcry, I will create seattle.forsale in about
a week.
-- 
D. Brian Kimmel - home system	(206) 937-5742      Modem: (206) 937-6779
briank@Kimbro.UUCP              uunet!camco!kimbro!briank
briank@Kimbro.SeaSlug.ORG
-- 
D. Brian Kimmel - home system	(206) 937-5742      Modem: (206) 937-6779
briank@Kimbro.UUCP              uunet!camco!kimbro!briank
briank@Kimbro.SeaSlug.ORG

   How about the following:
    * seattle.admin          Administravia
      seattle.events         Announcements, notices etc.
      seattle.forsale        Items for sale in the area
    * seattle.general        Catchall - general postings
      seattle.politics       Political discussions
      seattle.talk           BBS style chat through a newsgroup
    * seattle.test           Testing with a few scattered auto-reply sites.  

I am very strongly in favor of adding these new groups.

However, it will be hard to distinguish between politcs and talk;
perhaps we should start with just one of those groups.  Also, the uw
events group is called uw.announce; is that the more common naming
convention?
--
-- Ethan (ethanb@u.washington.edu)

In article <ETHANB.92Sep7162248@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu>, ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:
>    How about the following:
>     * seattle.admin          Administravia
>       seattle.events         Announcements, notices etc.
>       seattle.forsale        Items for sale in the area
>     * seattle.general        Catchall - general postings
>       seattle.politics       Political discussions
>       seattle.talk           BBS style chat through a newsgroup
>     * seattle.test           Testing with a few scattered auto-reply sites.  
> 
> I am very strongly in favor of adding these new groups.

I am not strongly pro or con on this; the naming of all these groups seems
to be clear enough to avoid the confusion factor.

As far as the costs to other sites (outside of Seattle) carrying
seattle.general, I don't understand what the big fuss is.  The news
software can be configured to accept or reject any group, and any site
that is carrying the seattle.* hierarchy is presumably doing so
willingly and because someone there is interested in reading it.  If
they don't want to pay for news they aren't interested in, they should
stop subscribing to the seattle.* groups.

--
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195