From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:46:24 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1992Nov8.005403.13675@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <CKD.92Nov7174508@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>>It's arguable (not that I expect you to accept the argument, of course)
>>that a "good" (properly hierarchical) name helps the net as a whole, and
>>the group in particular, while a "bad" (bizarrely hierarchy-less) name
>>harms the net as a whole (making the hierarchy less consistent) and
>>*potentially* also the group in question (making it harder to find).
>
>Of course, it's arguable.  The point is that once you accept the argument that
>good newsgroup names are better than bad newsgroup names, you can no longer
>ignore objections to a newsgroup name merely on the grounds that newsgroup
>names can never really hurt anyone.

I think the question should be "WHO is affected by the newsgroup name?", not
whether newsgroup names make any difference. My answers:

* Existing readers of a group who get the group directly may be affected for
  a short period around the time that their group gets renamed, as they have
  to subscribe to the new group - hardly a crippling burden. If their site
  only gets a limited selection of groups and their sysadmin is slow at
  implementing the change, they may miss out on the group for some period.
  This is more troublesome, but the person who can do something about it is
  the sysadmin concerned...

* Existing readers of a group who get the group through a gateway should
  generally not be affected by a name change. Again, there is an exception
  if the gateway is not maintained properly. This time, the person to
  consult is the gateway manager.

* Some new readers of a group are affected by the group being well-named, if
  for some reason it is easier to look through the list of newsgroup names
  than it is to look through the newsgroup descriptions.

* Sysadmins whose sites only get a limited selection of groups are helped by
  good hierarchical group naming, since the typical newsgroup selection file
  contains criteria along the lines of "do take hierarchy X, but don't take
  anything from subhierarchy X.Y other than the group X.Y.Z", "don't take
  hierarchy Q at all", etc. It is a lot easier to write such a file if the
  group hierarchies generally reflect the sets of groups that people are
  likely to reject or accept together.

  In addition, the newsgroup selection files are a lot shorter if the
  hierarchy is sensible. This can be important, since some software has
  limits on how long such a file can be.

* Even sysadmins whose sites get all the groups can be helped by a good
  hierarchical group naming, since they may wish e.g. to give groups that
  are important to their site longer expiry periods. This is a lot easier if
  they are all grouped together than if they are scattered all over the
  place.

In short, IMHO the people most affected by newsgroup naming issues are
sysadmins, and thus that the effect of the newsgroup name on them should be
the most important criterion. A secondary criterion is whether new readers
will be able to find the group easily by its name. Existing readers should
generally hardly be affected.

This doesn't mean that existing readers can't or shouldn't vote on naming
grounds - just an appeal that they should recognise that the effect of the
name on sysadmins and new users is important. If it creates too much work
for sysadmins, and especially if it causes them to run into software limits,
the group is liable to be dropped at many sites. If it proves difficult for
new readers to find, the group is liable to stagnate. Neither of these is
good for the health of the group...

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
Xref: sparky news.groups:20425 rec.music.synth:17831