Has there ever been a discussion about removing old groups without
any activity for the last 15 years or so?
I have no idea about the pros and cons, so just curious about reasons for/against such a decision.
On 25.02.2024 um 12:06 Uhr D wrote:
Has there ever been a discussion about removing old groups without
any activity for the last 15 years or so?
Of course, and it happened in de.* and fr.* and in the past in big-8
too.
I have no idea about the pros and cons, so just curious about reasons >>for/against such a decision.
Pros: Less groups, people can find active groups much easier.
Cons: Old groups with a history get deleted.
I prefer deleting them.
Uh, no. The history of the Big 8 is tale and The Great Renaming, and
several reorganizations, plus tale's great miscification. And tale gave
us humanities.* which has seen little traffic. . . .
On 25.02.2024 um 12:06 Uhr D wrote:
Has there ever been a discussion about removing old groups without
any activity for the last 15 years or so?
Of course, and it happened in de.* and fr.* and in the past in big-8
too.
I have no idea about the pros and cons, so just curious about reasons
for/against such a decision.
Pros: Less groups, people can find active groups much easier.
Cons: Old groups with a history get deleted.
I prefer deleting them.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote:
On 25.02.2024 um 12:06 Uhr D wrote:Thank you very much Marco. For me, personally, I would prefer deletion and then having people re-create groups instead of living with 1000s of dead ones.
Has there ever been a discussion about removing old groups without
any activity for the last 15 years or so?
Of course, and it happened in de.* and fr.* and in the past in big-8
too.
I have no idea about the pros and cons, so just curious about reasons
for/against such a decision.
Pros: Less groups, people can find active groups much easier.
Cons: Old groups with a history get deleted.
I prefer deleting them.
As for archiving functionality, maybe a compromise could be to save the
dead ones in an archive or make them read only under an archive.* name or something.
Has there ever been a discussion about removing old groups without any activity for the last 15 years or so?
Greetings.
On 2024-02-25 12:06, D wrote:
Has there ever been a discussion about removing old groups without any
activity for the last 15 years or so?
There have been several such discussions in the past, but AFAIK none after 2011.
Back in 2007 the Board adopted a policy for removing extremely low-traffic unmoderated groups.
Some time between 2007 and 2010, it started to establish a Dead Groups Task Force that would be responsible for maintaining and implementing this policy and for proposing lists of unmoderated groups to remove en masse.
It seems that the work of this task force resulted in two such mass removals, one in April 2011 [2] and one in August 2011 [3]. Further documentation about these two mass removals is documented on the Board's wiki [4].
Regards,
Tristan
[1] https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Nan:2007-10-02-low-traffic-result
[2] https://www.big-8.org/wiki/The_Great_Downsizing_2011/1
[3] https://www.big-8.org/wiki/The_Great_Downsizing_2011/2
[4] https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Mass_removal_of_groups
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote:
On 25.02.2024 um 12:06 Uhr D wrote:Thank you very much Marco. For me, personally, I would prefer deletion
Has there ever been a discussion about removing old groups without
any activity for the last 15 years or so?
Of course, and it happened in de.* and fr.* and in the past in big-8
too.
I have no idea about the pros and cons, so just curious about reasons
for/against such a decision.
Pros: Less groups, people can find active groups much easier.
Cons: Old groups with a history get deleted.
I prefer deleting them.
and then having people re-create groups instead of living with 1000s of
dead ones.
As for archiving functionality, maybe a compromise could be to save the
dead ones in an archive or make them read only under an archive.* name
or something.
Ah great! Thank you very much for the information. It does sounds like a logical and good thing to do from time to time.
It seems that the work of this task force resulted in two such mass
removals, one in April 2011 [2] and one in August 2011 [3]. Further documentation about these two mass removals is documented on the Board's
wiki [4].
Regards,
Tristan
[1] https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Nan:2007-10-02-low-traffic-result
[2] https://www.big-8.org/wiki/The_Great_Downsizing_2011/1
[3] https://www.big-8.org/wiki/The_Great_Downsizing_2011/2
[4] https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Mass_removal_of_groups
I'm sure there are other groups that get posts by people not knowing
they've been removed.
Am 29.02.2024 schrieb gbbgu <gbbgu@gbbgu.com>:
I'm sure there are other groups that get posts by people not knowing
they've been removed.
They their servers are not well administered.
Google groups was one of them.
Do you know others?
Do you have the msgids of those posts?
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 29.02.2024 schrieb gbbgu <gbbgu@gbbgu.com>:
I'm sure there are other groups that get posts by people not
knowing they've been removed.
They their servers are not well administered.
Google groups was one of them.
Do you know others?
Do you have the msgids of those posts?
If removal messages are voluntary for administrators, this does not
surprise me at all.
Am 29.02.2024 schrieb D <nospam@example.net>:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 29.02.2024 schrieb gbbgu <gbbgu@gbbgu.com>:
I'm sure there are other groups that get posts by people not
knowing they've been removed.
They their servers are not well administered.
Google groups was one of them.
Do you know others?
Do you have the msgids of those posts?
If removal messages are voluntary for administrators, this does not
surprise me at all.
They are voluntary because of the technical structure of usenet.
Nobody can "enforce" that an admin processes them.
They are more likely a convention that most of the admins follow.
Google didn't.
Am 29.02.2024 schrieb D <nospam@example.net>:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 29.02.2024 schrieb gbbgu <gbbgu@gbbgu.com>:
I'm sure there are other groups that get posts by people not
knowing they've been removed.
They their servers are not well administered.
Google groups was one of them.
Do you know others?
Do you have the msgids of those posts?
If removal messages are voluntary for administrators, this does not
surprise me at all.
They are voluntary because of the technical structure of usenet.
Nobody can "enforce" that an admin processes them.
They are more likely a convention that most of the admins follow.
Google didn't.
... For me, personally, I would prefer deletion
and then having people re-create groups instead of living with 1000s
of dead ones.
As for archiving functionality, maybe a compromise could be to save
the dead ones in an archive or make them read only under an archive.*
name or something.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 43:35:39 |
| Calls: | 6,910 |
| Files: | 12,376 |
| Messages: | 5,429,283 |