Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!ihnp4!drutx!druxt!mcq
From: mcq@druxt.UUCP (McQueerRL)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: A Thought on Newsgroup Structure (longish)
Message-ID: <884@druxt.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Jan-84 13:58:44 EST
Article-I.D.: druxt.884
Posted: Sat Jan 28 13:58:44 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Feb-84 01:16:39 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 92

[]----

In reading suggestions regarding new groups and watching discussions
arise and die in various groups, one notices especially the spasmodic
nature of net discussions.  One article spawns a discussion which
clutters up or enlivens a newsgroup for a while, depending on your
viewpoint.  If it continues for long enough somebody either suggests
net.new-topic-to-get-this-crap-out-of-here-so-I-don't-have-to-wade-through-
it, or net.new-topic-so-I-can-follow-this-discussion-coherently, or if
it's something clearly not deserving of a newsgroup, "OK, enough already!!!".

We need a mechanism to allow more flexible segregation of discussions.
The followup mechanism doesn't seem to be quite enough.  I have a thought
on this.  The proposal may not be feasible for 1001 reasons since I don't
know the internal structure of the news software, but I thought I'd toss it
out for comment anyhow.

It seems to me that since the basic means of control within USENET is the
newsgroup, what we really need is a way to have a more dynamic newsgroup
tree.  There was a discussion on automatic deletion of newsgroups recently,
with points being made on both sides.  What I would suggest is a mechanism
that would allow discussions which result in a temporary increase in volume
to result in a temporary sub-newsgroup to the original.  THESE newsgroups
would expire and their spooling directories removed as the discussion in
them abates.  Let me give a few details.

Put two new header items on articles, FTOPIC and FPOST.  FTOPIC is an
optional field which the original poster of an article can create to
designate a subgroup for subsequent discussion if there needs to be one.
At a given site, the arrival of a followup to an article causes the creation
of the subgroup, if it doesn't already exist, which I will call a followup
group.  The original article and its followup are placed in this subgroup.
Other followups arriving are put there also.  Now you may post to this new
group, unsubscribe to it, or whatever.

The FPOST item is to allow posting to followup groups in a way which won't
conflict with the normal distribution of news.  The newsgroup item of a
posted article contains only the original group, as before.  The FPOST item,
if present, contains the followup group "tail".  Arrival of an article with a
tail should also precipitate the creation of the followup group.  Posting
software should not allow the posting to a followup group that doesn't exist
on the posting site, however.  By handling things this way, the arrival of
a posting at a site previous to the followup article which created its
followup group will cause a minimum of problems.

Followup groups are removed when the articles in them expire, indicating that
the discussion which spawned them has died down.  This also means that
readnews should cleanup lines referring to stale newsgroups in the .newsrc
file.  We probably need an indication in the active newsgroup file to tell
whether a newsgroup is permanent or a followup group.

What we now have is a way for the person whose sense of humor doesn't tend
towards the ridiculous to unsubscribe to net.misc.wombat, or for the person
inclined in that direction to be able to enjoy it undiluted.  Or more
seriously, to keep an eye out for something that might interest you in a
group like net.micro, without having to sift through the usual heavy volume.

Some changes in newsgroup presentation may be needed for readnews, but not
drastic ones, I would guess.  I use my own news reader, so I'm not going to
propose anything for readnews.  If we want to get fancy, we can even maintain
the article which caused the creation of the followup group until the group
expires, and allow the news reader to see the article that started the
discussion on request.

There IS a need for an intelligent decision on the part of the poster of an
original article to determine whether or not the article needs a followup
group designated, and the choice of a sensible name.  I don't think name
collision is a worry - it would probably be rare, and if it happened the
articles probably discuss similar topics anyway - let them get lumped together.

I assume existing versions of news software ignore unrecognized header items,
so that this mechanism could be added to individual sites without causing any
problems in others.  At those sites, the discussions would remain lumped
together in the parent group, as they are now.  You could have the followup
group feature able to be toggled on or off on a site basis, also, to allow
sites worried about resource usage to keep the number of spooling directories
and administrative file sizes down to a minimum.

The basic idea here is that the current newsgroup tree structure remain, with
newsgroups under control of site administrators, however we add a dynamic tree
structure underneath it to accommodate spates of heavy traffic on one topic.
Note that we would also have a good indicator of the need for a new permanent
newsgroup - a followup group which never goes away, indicating permanent
interest (or a non-expiring article, which could be cleaned up).

It's just a thought - maybe somebody wants to kick the pros and cons around
a little.

		Bob McQueer
		decvax!ihnp4!druxt!mcq
			(I MAY be moved from druxt to drutx soon.  If
			 druxt doesn't know about me, try drutx).