Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site whuxle.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!whuxle!mp From: mp@whuxle.UUCP (Mark Plotnick) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: subgroups Message-ID: <241@whuxle.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Feb-84 14:07:51 EST Article-I.D.: whuxle.241 Posted: Mon Feb 13 14:07:51 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 00:22:43 EST Organization: Bell Labs, Whippany Lines: 48 One problem with the newsgroup hierarchy system right now is that it's only superficially a hierarchy. The only thing it buys presently is protection against the 14-character-filename limit and a way to selectively unsubscribe to topics of more limited interest. But you may not even see the groups and subgroups presented in a treelike order unless someone is keeping your active file alphabetized. And, even if you type U to every net.micro subgroup, you'll still see every new subgroup that pops up (unless you've discovered how to edit your .newsrc file). The current debate has produced some arguments based on misinformation, pessimism, and a good bit of elitism. Don't forget that: - not everyone is on a free hardwired 9600baud terminal - not everyone can spend 5 hours a day reading netnews - not everyone can tell whether an article is worth reading by merely reading its title (especially if it's as meaningful as "Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)" ) - not everyone is willing to read through 100 articles (or headers) in order to find one that interests them. They should still be able to function productively on this net. - the creation of one subgroup is not necessarily going to lead to the creation of 20 others. More to the point, the creation of one subgroup under a given group doesn't warrant the creation of every other possible type of subgroup under that group. - the creation of a new subgroup to serve a special-interest segment is no more discriminatory than creating a new department in a department store that's in a shopping mall. (hmmm, does this make us the shoppers or the management?) - the active file is not too large (yet). Clean out the newsgroups that were created by mistake and you'll have lots of room (I'm amazed that net.db keeps popping up). Forming subgroups is fine if done correctly and in moderation, allowing for the fact that the software needs a little more work. Those people who would read everything in net.foo will probably read net.foo.all. Those who would never read net.foo (e.g. because net.foo is a high-volume newsgroup filled with flamers) may be happy to read and maybe even participate in net.foo.subgroup1. In such a case, how can you object to creating such a subgroup? Finally, ponder this: if there isn't at least one subgroup under a top-level group, then perhaps that group doesn't belong at top-level in the first place, and should be a subgroup of something else. Witness net.{unix,unix-wizards,bugs,usoft} which will forever be separate because of their heritage. Mark Plotnick WH 1C-244 x6955