From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.*
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:32:34 GMT


In article <1992Dec15.161939.27056@osf.org>
coren@speed.osf.org (Robert Coren) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.012442.27914@macc.wisc.edu>,
>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>>soc.motss.politics.documents

>>soc.motss.misc

>The problem I see with this proposal is that these topics
>overlap to such a degree that discussions started in one
>(say .coping -- and, BTW, I'm with Arne in not caring for
>this name) would "drift" into areas more within the scope of
>another (say .politics).

I await superior suggestions.

>This would result in one or more of several outcomes: (1)
>the groups would become indistinguishable in content; (2)
>the discussions themselves would migrate, and people who
>read one group but not another would see partial
>discussions, and probably repeat the stuff they missed in
>the group they don't read; (3) rampant cross-posting would
>occur among these four groups, leading to (1), above; (4) I
>would go crazy trying to remember in which of the groups
>some topic was being pursued; (5) people would complain that
>others were posting "inappropriate" stuff to the group that
>they read, and that it really belonged in one of the others,
>and we could have new meta-discussions even more boring than
>the ones we have now (like this one :-)).

You're in effect saying the situation is hopeless.  Pausing
overlong on what *might* happen is the familiar
doom-forecasting used to suppress every new option.  Rather
than indulge in that, it seems to me more productive to
advance a better idea, if one can be found.

A while back, there was an 8-way split of the (then one)
NeXT group.  I had all sorts of misgivings about it, but it
has worked very well.  There are occasional inappropriate
cross-postings or things landing in the wrong group, but
such problems are minimal.

>I end up skipping about half of the articles in soc.motss
>because they're not interesting to me.  That's life, and I
>don't have a problem with it.  I suspect that, under the
>division proposed, I would read all 4 groups, skipping about
>half the articles in each because they weren't interesting
>to me.  OK, so this means *I* wouldn't gain anything by the
>division, BFD; but I don't actually see how the soc.motss
>"community" at large would gain either.

I'm not a perfection-seeker, though I don't push it out
the door if it just shows up, either. :-)

>>In addition, since I'm bothering, I think it's time for a
>>little more discipline in the mechanics of posting, for
>>self-restraint in cross-posting and responding to
>>cross-posts, for managing the Subject line with *far*
>>greater attention to actual content.  These are not
>>difficult things to do, they just require a bit of
>>familiarization for new people and a very few moments of
>>consideration for readers before sending a posting off to
>>the world.

>On the other hand, if we split the group but the promiscuous
>cross-posting and sloppy subject-labelling continue as
>today, all we will have is four groups (or however many)
>that look exactly as soc.motss looks today.

In practice, that's not how it tends to work, as hundreds of
other splits over the years have amply shown.

>>In terms of overall content, it seems to me there has been a
>>*very* steep decline in average quality in soc.motss
>>postings, the major culprit of which I see as the
>>cross-posting evil.

>I wonder how many times I've read this sentence or its
>equivalents in the 3.5 years I've been reading soc.motss.  I
>suspect a bit of "Good Old Days" syndrome, myself, but it's
>not worth fighting over.

Then why mention it?  That goes to the heart of the
discipline I was suggesting.

-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
From: decot@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 13:17:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Any GOOD gay bars in Falls Church, VA?
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino