If you want a newsgroup to be createds in the comp. hierarchy, you must follow the process described at <http://www.big-8.org/articles/h/o/w/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup.html>.
You will see that the first step would be to get a few other
individuals to reply in this thread that they too would use such a new newsgroup.
In article <nd3bhh$roj$1@dont-email.me>,
Shao Miller <sha0.usenet@synthetel.com> wrote:
Given that context, could you please help me to better
understand your objection to the Costnerian "if you build it, they will
come" strategy?
Because it doesn't work. Usenet has no advertising budget. When you google "swift discussion" you won't find Usenet. Creating a group for a specific topic here will not magically draw users from other media. If they aren't here, now, using Usenet, they won't bother coming here.
It's now 2016; is there a heavy burden on human,
computing and/or network resources that makes carrying another
news-group as careful a consideration as it might have been in times
gone by?
Oh, my. What a can of worms you open with that question. Many of us have pointed this out to TPTB, but having a nice, clean Usenet is a goal that
many have just because cleanliness is next to Godliness. Having empty newsgroups is just, well, untidy. It confuses people who do come here
looking for discussion on some topic when they ask a question but get
no response.
Now, that is not to say that some groups have continued to operate
well. It is just that the chances of success are much greater when you
start with an existing user base than when you create a completely new
place with nobody around to talk about the topic.
Since Usenet seems like a rather original medium, I thought it might be
nice for it to be host to such discussion, as opposed to a fragmentation
across web-fora, mailing-lists, etc.
Yes, Usenet is the original. We can think it might be nice if discussion
were here, but we cannot force people to do that. They will go where
they are comfortable. They are most comfortable today in a sanitized, controlled discussion environment, and that requires a centralized
forum. Not Usenet. And if they aren't already more comfortable in a controlled environment, they will quickly become so when they read their first troll or flame war. Or wonder why the spammers cannot be stopped.
Personally, I no longer come to Usenet looking for answers to technical questions. There are just too many websites with the answers already
there, questions already answered, and instant gratification, to want to
wait for someone to provide a potential answer a couple of days after I
need it. A very large percentage of the time it will be the wrong answer,
and we'll waste a few days debating what the right one actually is,
IF there is anyone around who knows the right one. Sorry, but that's
how it is now.
On 3/26/2016 16:36, David E. Ross wrote:
If you want a newsgroup to be createds in the comp. hierarchy, you must
follow the process described at
<http://www.big-8.org/articles/h/o/w/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup.html>.
You will see that the first step would be to get a few other
individuals to reply in this thread that they too would use such a new
newsgroup.
Thank you for your response.
You've shared a link that was present near the bottom of the post you
have replied to.
Can you please direct me to the text on that web-page that suggests the
first step is getting a few other individuals to state that they would
use the new news-group? I'm having some difficulty locating it.
Take care.
On 3/29/2016 12:01, Shao Miller wrote:
On 3/26/2016 16:36, David E. Ross wrote:
You will see that the first step would be to get a few other
individuals to reply in this thread that they too would use such a new
newsgroup.
Read more carefully the paragraph at <http://www.big-8.org/articles/h/o/w/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup.html#Informal_Discussion>.
The proponent may choose to conduct an interest poll during the informal discussion phase. See the notes on Traffic Analysis for further information.
On 3/29/2016 20:02, David E. Ross wrote:
On 3/29/2016 12:01, Shao Miller wrote:
On 3/26/2016 16:36, David E. Ross wrote:
You will see that the first step would be to get a few other
individuals to reply in this thread that they too would use such a new >>>> newsgroup.
Read more carefully the paragraph at
<http://www.big-8.org/articles/h/o/w/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup.html#Informal_Discussion>.
Thank you. Is this the text that you are referring to as being visible
as the first step?:
Your helpful link[3] includes:
The proponent may choose to conduct an interest poll during the informal
discussion phase. See the notes on Traffic Analysis for further information.
[3] http://www.big-8.org/articles/h/o/w/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup.html#Informal_Discussion
Given that context, could you please help me to better
understand your objection to the Costnerian "if you build it, they will
come" strategy?
It's now 2016; is there a heavy burden on human,
computing and/or network resources that makes carrying another
news-group as careful a consideration as it might have been in times
gone by?
Since Usenet seems like a rather original medium, I thought it might be
nice for it to be host to such discussion, as opposed to a fragmentation >across web-fora, mailing-lists, etc.
In article <nd3bhh$roj$1@dont-email.me>,
Shao Miller <sha0.usenet@synthetel.com> wrote:
Given that context, could you please help me to better
understand your objection to the Costnerian "if you build it, they will
come" strategy?
Because it doesn't work. Usenet has no advertising budget. When you google "swift discussion" you won't find Usenet. Creating a group for a specific topic here will not magically draw users from other media. If they aren't here, now, using Usenet, they won't bother coming here.
It's now 2016; is there a heavy burden on human,
computing and/or network resources that makes carrying another
news-group as careful a consideration as it might have been in times
gone by?
Oh, my. What a can of worms you open with that question. Many of us have pointed this out to TPTB, but having a nice, clean Usenet is a goal that
many have just because cleanliness is next to Godliness. Having empty newsgroups is just, well, untidy. It confuses people who do come here
looking for discussion on some topic when they ask a question but get
no response.
Now, that is not to say that some groups have continued to operate
well. It is just that the chances of success are much greater when you
start with an existing user base than when you create a completely new
place with nobody around to talk about the topic.
Since Usenet seems like a rather original medium, I thought it might be
nice for it to be host to such discussion, as opposed to a fragmentation
across web-fora, mailing-lists, etc.
Yes, Usenet is the original. We can think it might be nice if discussion
were here, but we cannot force people to do that. They will go where
they are comfortable. They are most comfortable today in a sanitized, controlled discussion environment, and that requires a centralized
forum. Not Usenet. And if they aren't already more comfortable in a controlled environment, they will quickly become so when they read their first troll or flame war. Or wonder why the spammers cannot be stopped.
Personally, I no longer come to Usenet looking for answers to technical questions. There are just too many websites with the answers already
there, questions already answered, and instant gratification, to want to
wait for someone to provide a potential answer a couple of days after I
need it. A very large percentage of the time it will be the wrong answer,
and we'll waste a few days debating what the right one actually is,
IF there is anyone around who knows the right one. Sorry, but that's
how it is now.
I have been considering going to other fora and raising awareness about
the new Usenet news-group, if it's successfully created. That is, using
my own advertising budget.
Now, that is not to say that some groups have continued to operate
well. It is just that the chances of success are much greater when you
start with an existing user base than when you create a completely new
place with nobody around to talk about the topic.
Ah yes, it'd be nice to avoid confusing people. This makes sense.
It seems like a testing phase might be useful. It's now 2016, so I'm
sure that's been suggested before. Do you happen to recall what some >objections to a testing phase might have been?
My Usenet participation does not go as far back as the 1990s. This
might be useful context for my optimism. :)
On 3/31/2016 11:36 AM, Mark Kramer wrote [in part]:
It doesn't work. People who don't have Usenet access now aren't going
to spend time getting Usenet access for just one group. Certainly not
when they can go to an Apple website where the answers already exist.
First you have to find a Usenet server that will allow you to read and
post. Then you have to get software.
There are free newsgroup servers. If you have a good E-mail
application, subscribing to one of them is not difficult. Furthermore, anyone interested in a computer programming language should be somewhat
adept at handling the subscribing process.
I suggest that a comp.lang.swift discussion forum could be useful for interest in and discussion regarding the "Swift" computer programming language.
Shao Miller <sha0.usenet@synthetel.com> writes:
I suggest that a comp.lang.swift discussion forum could be useful for interest in and discussion regarding the "Swift" computer programming language.
This sounds like a good idea.
It doesn't work. People who don't have Usenet access now aren't going
to spend time getting Usenet access for just one group. Certainly not
when they can go to an Apple website where the answers already exist.
First you have to find a Usenet server that will allow you to read and
post. Then you have to get software.
If you're going to depend on Google Groups (does that still even
exist? I don't know; don't care. It was a problem for real Usenet from
day 1.)
RFC5537 took, according to the acknowledgements,
12 years to write and is now 7 years old. I remember wasting a very large amount of time on that process, and I'm frankly amazed that it has gotten
out of draft status. It seemed hopeless at the time. And I have no idea
if any of the Usenet software has been updated to follow it. The last
Usenet "improvement" I know of was Usenet II, and that leaked messages
so bad that it was really not any different.
On 3/31/2016 11:36 AM, Mark Kramer wrote [in part]:
It doesn't work. People who don't have Usenet access now aren't going
to spend time getting Usenet access for just one group. Certainly not
when they can go to an Apple website where the answers already exist.
First you have to find a Usenet server that will allow you to read and
post. Then you have to get software.
There are free newsgroup servers. If you have a good E-mail
application, subscribing to one of them is not difficult.
I see that you still used
the Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) to express your opinion.
Old does not equal obsolete.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 292 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 206:01:34 |
| Calls: | 6,618 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,168 |
| Messages: | 5,316,751 |