From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
	<EMCGUIRE.92Dec22050730@fuller.intellection.com>
	<id.5T1W.HD4@ferranti.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:58:08 GMT

In article <id.5T1W.HD4@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

   So, someone has revealed unto you that "volume" is the only
   rational criterion to judge a successful newsgroup? I can't
   possibly agree: the groups with the highest volume on the larger
   net are dedicated to massive copyright violations and are illegal
   in several parts of the world.

I agree that volume, per se, is not the criterion to use.  What is
actually wanted is the number of sites where someone is reading the
group.  When I say I'll take high traffic in another group or a high
traffic mailing list as one form of justification for creation of a
new group, I assume that high traffic implies wide readership.
Obviously there will be exceptions, and I'm open to alternatives.
High "yes" returns imply the same thing, that the readership will be
wide enough to justify a new group.  Given how easy it would be to get
a hundred votes from the readers of one university spool, I think the
use of votes to conclude wide readership is on shakier ground than the
use of existing traffic, though it isn't currently under fire.

   Who's this "we"? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather deal
   with half a dozen low volume newsgroups than as many mailing lists.

Sorry, I didn't mean to overgeneralize.  I have simply observed that
advice to "where is an XXX group?" posters often takes the line that
the person should drum up traffic in a .misc group or start a mailing
list.  I thought that was the prevailing advice.  Maybe I just notice
it more because I agree with it.

   > Any new group proposal should show that this path was followed or give
   > a good reason why not.

   Why?

If news should not be carrying limited readership topics, then a
proposal should show evidence that this would not be the case.  I
don't assume you to agree on my basic position, but I think you should
at least see that this is a consequence of it.

   Yes, the size of the net has greatly increased, but the quality of
   the technology applied to news has increased much faster than the
   quality of the technology applied to mail. News is now relatively
   much cheaper to carry than mail, on a per-site basis.

But apply the principle of decreasing returns.  If the number of sites
reading the group is few, then mail is cheaper.  It is always going to
be a waste of resources to use the flooding algorithm to carry a group
to a few sites.

   Can we take the "Hitler and the NAZIs" bit as read? The purpose of
   the vote to me, as a news admin, is to determine if there is
   interest in the group.  Anything I can do to decrease the noise
   level in the sample, such as removing votes I have reason to
   believe are essentially random (such as an uninvolved observer's
   opinion about the "quality" of the proposal), are entirely
   legitimate.

I don't care what you do at your site, that has nothing to do with it.
You called on all news admins to ignore my votes.  That is an attempt
to blacklist me, try as you might to to belittle the fact by comparing
yourself to Hitler.  If I were you I might feel like squirming out of
it too.  (By the way, I was impressed.  Self comparison with Hitler is
one of the more novel invocations of the guy I've seen on the net.)
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>

Raise Usenet quality.  Read news.announce.newgroups and vote.