From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CFV? What's a CFV??
Date: 20 Nov 1992 05:28:56 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov19.090934.14655@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>>That may have been workable a few years ago, but the USENET consensus
>>>you describe doesn't actually represent more than a handfull of people
>>>in comparison with readership surveys. Lots of sites do NOT GET news.groups,
>>Honestly, I don't think that such sites should be taken seriously.
>
>Oh come on, man. With the amount of flamage that goes on here and the
>expressed dislike of it that people keep showing, can you really say
>that news.groups is a valid and worthwile newsgroup? 

Not if you try to browse it for light entertainment.

It's an important political institution.  The S/N ratio
with respect to any one person's interests is SUPPOSED to
be low, just like a 'forsale' group.

Dave, if you can figure out how to reach a consensus on
controversial issues among people with strong opinions,
you're wasting your time on usenet!  Not to worry; your
track record isn't so hot...

>>News.groups is among the most important newsgroups a site can receive.
>>If one chooses not to receive it -- or, for that matter, just about
>>any newsgroup in news.*, they have willfully forsaken their part in
>>the newsgroup creation/organization process.
>
>I can't agree with that at all. I think, in fairness, any site that
>gets group X should have a part in the process of renaming X. Regardless.

Any site that can exchange email can have a part in any usenet
vote, as things now stand.  This point is nonsense.

>People who voted for Clinton didn't have to watch the debates, you know. 

People who vote for newsgroups don't have to read news.groups.
They just have to have enough of a clue not to put '/CFV/j' in
their kill files.  It would have been more relevant to
talk about the people who participated in the second debate.
News.groups is a discussion forum, not the primary instrument
of pseudo-democratic empowerment on usenet.

>>Please, no comments about people who don't know the purpose of
>>news.groups, etc.  These sites are set up by *someone* with at least a
>>ghost of a clue how Usenet works.  Those people have a responsibility
>>to ensure that news.* gets fed to the target site.

And that new users get told about news.announce.newusers.

>As the numbers go up, statistucal fluctuations can cause a newsfeed
>to happen such that the people involved do not know anything about this
>group. 

If you find a way to eliminate ignorance and bozodom, please
tell us about it.  Start with yourself: newsfeeds don't
"happen", they're created.  If their readers don't figure
out that they're playing with half a deck (seeing notes
like "There's a discussion in news.groups that affects
this group" and not being able to find news.groups should
set off alarms) and get things fixed, they deserve their
disenfranchisement.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh