From: turrell@violet.berkeley.edu (David Turrell)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Is it time to rm this group?
Date: 31 Dec 1992 09:28:48 GMT
Organization: Cobol Pacific University
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec15.123937.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu>
cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.001510.25372@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
>whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec14.224908.9279@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>>pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
>>
>>>Readership and posting seem to be increasing in a.w.c.u., so should this group
>>>be moved into a mainstream hierarchy?  What does everyone think?
>>
>> I disagree for two reasons:
>> 
>> 1. as of now, this bump is only a week or two old. In two months we might
>> be back to near-zero traffic again (though I hope not...)
>> 
>> 2. I don't think we have 100 posters+lurkers yet, so would lose in a call
>> for votes even if no one voted against. I think we need to wait and build
>> a larger base. Maybe try to crosspost on issues of more general interest
>> and try to hook some more readers.
>
>Extrapolating from the number of unfamiliar addresses on private E-mail replies
>I have received over the past several months, I'd guess that the total 
>readership (that checks in weekly) is probably over 100. I don't know if that 
>translates into votes.
>
>Forgive me, but what are the issues involved?  Do we all get T-shirts with
>"soc.history.war.civil.usa" printed on them?  Do we risk being banned 
>from the net if we make a wrong step after we emerge from the security
>of our "alt." prefix?  I really don't know much about the newsgroup ground
>rules, but unless I hear a compelling argument to the contrary I'd say, 
>"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Regarding the number of readers this group might have, here is this
group's entry in the Usenet Readership Report for Nov. 1992 (from
news.lists):

rank  #rdrs #samp sites #msgs  kbytes  xpost  cost  %rdrs  name
1287   7500   219   48%    52    81.1     4%  0.01   0.4%  alt.war.civil.usa 

7500 readers is modest, but enough so that we shouldn't feel that
there isn't already enough interest to create a mainstream newsgroup.
It's true that a.w.c.u became comatose a couple of times recently
(late Oct & late Nov), but CPR was administered successfully each
time.

One way of increasing readership is to cross-post more, probably to
soc.history, and make people aware that way. But there must be other
groups we overlap: alt.war?, sci.military?

What was the genesis of this group? From what other group, if any, did
it spin off?

There are a couple of good reasons for eventually moving to a
mainstream hierarchy. One stems from the fact that some sites stop
carrying the entire "alt" hierarchy to effect removal of the
controversial groups. We might reach more sites by reincarnating.
Or, is alt's lack of respectability part of the appeal of having
this group where it is?

Two is that people are more likely, I think, to look for groups on
Civil War history by searching on "history" in their .newsrc's. This
argues not just for moving, but for being under soc.history.
Preferably, we take the opportunity to change our name to s.h.acw or
s.h.am-civil-war, the present name is a bit too backwards. However, if
people continue to post interesting stuff, others will find us,
whatever our name.

As for T-shirts, I prefer pictures of soldiers being run through with
bayonets, or impaled on an abatis. ...Fond memories of my CW trading
card collection.

-David
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa