From: gary@clarinet.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga)
Subject: Re: more on state of the newsgroup (semi-long)
Keywords: USENET-STUFF newsgroup split
Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 18:36:09 GMT

In article <1992Mar31.033855.11120@nuchat.sccsi.com>, jlb@nuchat.sccsi.com (Joel Breazeale) writes:
|> In article <1992Mar27.174548.18465@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
|> >In article <1992Mar26.183612.12463@hounix.org> jlb@hounix.org (Joel Breazeale) writes:
|> >>
|> >>I'm willing to give this a try.  Except...  Could we have a little more
|> >>granularity within the "WSD" category? ...
|> >>I'd really like to separate the picky discussions which might ensue under
|> >>modern WSD concerning movements.
|> >Thanks, Joel, for at last making your biases crystal clear.
|> 
|> I'm indicating my bias...  It took me a while to really get my feelings sorted
|> out.  I don't think it is related to level.
|> [personal attack related stuff deleted]
Perhaps you're right, maybe it's not related to level.  But could you not make
the exact same argument regarding:
(1) Whether a certain folk dance type is in 5/16 time or not?
(2) Whether a thumbs-up or non-thumbs-up allemande is better in contra?
(3) Several other subjects that have been discussed recently but I can't remember?

Now, if you wanted to make a distinction between detailed discussions of details
of particular dance types and general discussions about dance-related topics, that
would be another story.  Seems to me that discussions about, for example,
getting people interested in WSD vs. the same in international folk dancing are
MUCH more closely related than discussions about details of WSD vs. the int'l
dances; in fact, they probably have more in common than discussions of general
topics vs. specific details even when made in reference to a single type of
dancing.

[Personally, although I only do WSD, all of these topics hold some interest for
me; I also feel no compunction about making use of the "k" and "c" keys when
necessary, so that I can easily pass by those few articles that don't interest me
and that I don't have time to sift through (for non-Unix types, these are the
keys in 'rn'/'xrn' to kill all articles with the same subject line, and to kill
all articles currently in the group; other newsreaders have similar capabilities).]

I was one of the first to propose keywords lines and kill files in this group
(not like it's a highly revolutionary idea <:^), but I'm having some second
thoughts on the classification system.  Although I still think this type of
classification can be useful, it would probably be most useful if oriented
more towards the general "kind of" content of the message rather than the
specific type of dance involved.  For example, a message about getting people
interested in WSD would be labelled something like "new interest" in the
keywords line.  Only discussions of, say, details of a certain call would be
labelled "WSD".  This kind of classification, by the way, would allow cross-
pollination of the "general interest" types of topics that having separate
newsgroups would effectively prevent.  I still believe that our commonalities
are more prevalent than our differences.

The caveat here, which may doom the keyword/kill file system once and for
all, is that this requires constant vigilance on the part of the poster.
While it is quite easy to put a keywords line on a message you send out
yourself, it is much more difficult (in my experience) to always check and
edit these header lines when posting responses, which, after all, make up
the vast majority of the postings in any newsgroup.  (The informal proof of
this is that most threads mutate far away from the original topic yet the
subject: line often doesn't change from the original entry.)

So, what's the answer?  I can't pretend to knowing the ultimate answer.  But
at least this is a question.

-- 
Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org)
Newsgroups: rec.folk-dancing