From: graham@cs.utexas.edu (Ralph Arnold Graham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Subject: Re: ***** Proposed RFD:  c.s.i.p.g reorganization  -- please examine
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:35:24 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: tokio.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan22.200026.27650@cs.uwp.edu> shaub@cs.uwp.edu (Jeffery Shaub) writes:

>One thing to keep in mind, is that the network is full of newsgroups, and
>doesn't need 8 new ones.  It's a great idea to split this group, but maybe
>a smaller split would be better for the net as a whole.
>
>IMHO .rpg and .adventure should be combined.  Since these two game types
>"seem" to occupy most of the discussion space anyway, you might be able to
>get by with:
>
>	.adventure
>	.action/sports
>	.misc 
>	.advocacy
>	.announce
>
>These names are not set in stone, but this would break up the group without
>flooding the net with 8 more groups.


I concur with Jeff, but we could possibly take this a step further - 
combining advocacy and announce.  It is often the case that after
there is an announcement, the ensuing discussion becomes one of
advocacy.  The net is *loaded* with newsgroups.  As it stands now,
a new user to some of the threaded news readers must endure days while
the reader plows through every available newsgroup to put in the
.newsrc file.  Although huge, the Internet is limited to the sum of
its parts.  As the numbers of newsgroups proliferate, some system
administrators are limiting the newsfeeds.  

News articles are a bit like gas in that they often expand to fill
the container.  I have noticed, over the years I have been reading
newsgroups, the following:
	Newsgroup splits tend to result in a lot of crossposting,
	defeating the reason for the split to begin with.  People
	want to ensure the widest semi-relevant audience possible.
	Those who are selling/buying game-related software and
	hardware, which single group will they post to?

	Many of the readers of the original newsgroup tend to
	subscribe to most of the splinter groups as well.  This
	is evident from their postings.  Again, making the split
	a little less effective.

If groups tend to split into 4-8 splinters, it doesn't take a
genius to determine the speed of growth.  I have seen groups
splinter to several groups and then seen the splinters splinter
into several more over the years.  And many of these groups are
exceptionally similar in content.  After this split (should it
occur), I will have seen the 6 or so newsgroups I subscribed to
not much over a year ago expand to just under 30 newsgroups.  The
volume of news is just tremendous.  After a split, about 50% of the
traffic is legitimate - it actually belongs solely in that group.
The other 50% of the traffic can be found on each of the other
splinters as well.

I realize that simp[le growth of the computer world alone obviates
some of the increased traffic, but much of it is just duplication.
Folks, with the Internet growing at 30% per MONTH, we need to
start watching our resources.



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Ralph Graham		                graham@cs.utexas.edu
     . . . life is merely a wretched cesspool of twisted emotions . . . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------