From: werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Ideas on how to split rec.aviation
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:21:20 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: dimebox.cs.utexas.edu


 rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes:

> I advocate the following as the core rec.aviation groups
> (and possibly the only groups):
>
>    rec.aviation.misc
>    rec.aviation.soaring
>    rec.aviation.powered
>    rec.aviation.powered.ifr

	2 things wrong with this "solution": THIS 3-way (plus misc)
	split isn't gaining much (by reducing the burden of having to
	wade through much uninteresting traffic by unsubscribing from groups);
	and to to create rec.av.powered and rec.av.powered.ifr makes
	no sense because (a) even non-IFR-rated power pilots will not
	want to ignore IFR-discussions, and (b) just as rec.aviation
	should not remain (when sub-groups are created, it is generally
	desirable to create a 'catch-leftovers' *.misc group), to
	have a *.powered group and a *.powered.ifr sub-group is
	not a good solution.

	the only motivation *I* have for seeing rec.aviation split
	into sub-groups is because KILL-files and selectively reading
	threads still leaves me with a feeling of dissatisfaction due
	to the noise-data ratio.  If someone would create a weekly
	'Best-of-rec.aviation' digest/summary, that would serve my
	needs (even without a split) - though splitting into sub-topics
	and/or a weekly digest for sub-topics (with or without a split)
	could be even more "desirable".

	So, as far as I am concerned, the optimal split (for me) is
	one that allows me to COMPLETELY ignore (unsubscribe from)
	as many subgroups as possible (without missing any articles
	which I'd really rather not miss) and, in those subgroups
	I'd keep subscribed, to experience a data/noise ratio which
	doesn't lead me to want to unsubscribe from those also (as is
	the case with the current rec.aviation)

	so rather than suggesting a split which will have you subscribe
	to all the new groups anyway, please try to think of which
	traffic in rec.aviation to split off that you'd then want to
	ignore completely by unsubscribing.

	Here is a split which would serve MY interests well:

        rec.aviation.atc
        rec.aviation.legal
        rec.aviation.ownership
        rec.aviation.regulatory
        rec.aviation.digests
        rec.aviation.answers
        rec.aviation.products
        rec.aviation.software
        rec.aviation.social
        rec.aviation.training
        rec.aviation.misc

	I'd be perfectly happy to see separate groups created for
	hang-gliding, ballooing, air-ships, whatever - I would
	not vote against ANY group that I'd gladly unsubscribe
	from (as the date/noise ratio in rec.aviation.misc would
	improve as result, as far as I am concerned)

	creating an FTPable collection of rec.aviation - possibly
	classified by sub-topic - could make wonderful reading
	years later (as well as for new-comers).

	But lets never forget that while "recreational flying"
	is a serious matter, it is always desirable to have a
	forum such as sci.aeronautics  and/or sci.engineering.airliners
	as no rec.aviation.* group is ever likely to be a satisfying
	substitute forum.  And I certainly oppose the idea of creating
	a rec.aviation.airlines group to REPLACE sci.aeronautics
	(though if enough chit-chat about airlines occurs in rec.aviation
	which cannot "find a home" in rec.travel.air or sci.aeronautics,
	well, then, by all means, I would gladly NOT OPPOSE the creation
	of a rec.aviation.airline(r)s-chit-chat....  I am not bothered
	by groups I unsubscribe from without giving it a second thought)
-- 
  werner@cs.utexas.edu |  ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | werner@UTXVM.bitnet

              "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"