NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/sys/ibm/pc/games/22048

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Joshua Randall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Subject: Re: Reorg: Suggestions for possible subgroups?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 18:10:02 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 61
Distribution: world,local
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <rdippold.720213654@qualcom> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael McCarthy) writes:
>A "for-sale" group would be great as well.

You can already post games for sale on "misc.forsale.computers.other".

>I don't agree that a good kill-file will eliminate most of the volume.
>I get very tired going through 100/150 articles AFTER my kill file
>has gone through it. The problem is, that most of the volume is made
>up of people who don't use naming conventions, and who usually ask
>FAQ's

This is true.  So, if you're reading this, *please* us intelligent
subject lines, and *please* read the FAQ.  E-mail me
([e-mail]) for a copy of it if you need one.

Actually, Chris Warren, author of the FAQ, and I are working on
greatly enhancing it.  If you would like to help, write to Chris at
"[e-mail]" (I don't think he'll mind me giving out his address).

>If the news-group were to be split up, we could have more comprehensive
>FAQ's in each newsgroup, and we could have better discussions.
>I think people will get a lot more satisfaction out of the games group(s)
>if they can just read what they're interested in.
>And that, after all, is what the Usenet is for.

But as I said before, some people are interested in many different
types of game.  For example, I like action, sports, the occasional
flightsim, "rpgs", and even a few adventure games.  I'd have to read
six groups instead of one.

Also, some of the proposed groups just wouldn't have enough posts to
justify a new group.  Take sports for example.  I've only seen about
15 posts in the last week.  That is not enough to justify a new group.

>Some people say that it will cost the net.community more if we split up
>this newsgroup. I don't think that's true. It may cost the central machines
>a bit more (then again, on my site, we get about fifteen new newsgroups per
>week, so what's a bit of reorganisation going to add to the costs?), but
>it will save the single machine, single account people a lot of money,
>by not having to download newsgroups about subjects they don't care
>about. (At least, I'm under the impression that these people can choose
>which newsgroups they get. Maybe someone could enlighten me?)
>Anyway, when (if) there is a CFV for reorganising votes, I will definitely
>vote YES.

While it is true that those who get their newsfeed on a pay basis
would save money by only subscribing to groups they want, it is also
true that each and every post costs money.  In my case, it costs Yale
money.  In Ross Erickson's case, it costs Intergraphics money.  In Jay
Wilbur's case, it costs Id money.  In Chris Warren's case, it costs
Apple Computers money.  And it will cost all of these organization
*more* money to carry more groups.

Please, if you think I'm just being ornery, subscribe to "news.groups"
and read the messages there for a while.  You will see what a complex
and difficult process it is to split a newsgroup.  If someone does try
to split this group, be prepared for months of flamewars which will
make the piracy debate look like a church meeting.

--
Joshua E. Randall                       [e-mail]