Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > news.groups.proposals > #4095 > unrolled thread

RfD: Rationalization of talk.*

Back to article view | Back to news.groups.proposals

Contents

  RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> - 2026-01-07 20:59 -0500
    Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> - 2026-02-06 12:02 -0500
    Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* David Chmelik <dchmelik@gmail.com> - 2026-03-02 16:38 -0500
    Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-03-17 10:03 -0400
      Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-03-17 15:38 -0400
        Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 07:28 -0400
          Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-03-18 15:46 -0400
            Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 05:43 -0400
          Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> - 2026-03-19 05:20 -0400
            Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 15:01 -0400
              Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) - 2026-05-10 13:20 -0400
                Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Michael Bäuerle <michael.baeuerle@gmx.net> - 2026-05-11 07:28 -0400
                  Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 08:13 -0400
                    Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 02:31 -0400
                Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2026-05-11 07:29 -0400
                  Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 02:31 -0400
                Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> - 2026-05-14 15:35 -0400
                  Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-05-14 23:12 -0400
                  Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) - 2026-05-15 04:39 -0400
                    Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2026-05-15 11:21 -0400
                    Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-05-15 11:22 -0400
                      Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Dr Engelbert Buxbaum <engelbert_buxbaum@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-16 05:41 -0400
                        Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 02:31 -0400
                        Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> - 2026-05-18 02:32 -0400
                      Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 02:31 -0400
                        Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 07:10 -0400
                          Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-05-19 06:01 -0400
                            Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-05-19 07:33 -0400
                              Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2026-05-19 14:40 -0400
                              Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-05-20 05:15 -0400
                            Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-19 14:25 -0400
                      Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> - 2026-05-18 02:31 -0400
                    Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> - 2026-06-03 17:41 -0400
                      Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-06-04 02:26 -0400
                        Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> - 2026-06-04 16:43 -0400
                          Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Thomas Hochstein <thh@thh.name> - 2026-06-05 02:09 -0400
                          Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 02:08 -0400
                      Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Thomas Hochstein <thh@thh.name> - 2026-06-04 12:08 -0400
                        Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> - 2026-06-04 16:25 -0400
                  Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole) - 2026-06-11 13:01 -0400
                Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-16 05:47 -0400
                Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 02:31 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#4146

Verily, in article <10u6kbv$2asv$1@nntp.sonologic.net>, did gmc@metro.cx 
deliver unto us this message:
> 
> I have (granted, merely anecdotal) evidence that the number
> of dead groups with obsolete subjects scares new users off.
> People returning or new users perceive usenet as a wasteland
> full of obsolete subjects that no-one is interested in any
> more and see no reason to become interested themselves.

I think you're right. People log on and check a few groups they used to 
like, find them empty, and decide Usenet's already dead. Pruning dead 
groups helps the whole Usenet survive.

 
> And that at a time where more and more people are pissed off with
> the direction the internet has taken in the past decades. More
> and more folks (including young people, not just old farts like
> me) are tired of enshittification and corporate controlled walled
> gardens, and that sentiment is something usenet could benefit from.

Now that the spam problem is under control, Usenet is blessedly free 
from corporatism. If it becomes more popular, corporations will turn up 
soon enough. 


> Anyway, if it's dead groups we're combining, then what is the
> harm? The worst that can happen is that instead of ten dead
> groups you now have one dead group.

Exactly. The recombined groups won't magically spring back to life, but 
potential new users will see the groups with traffic instead of having 
to hunt around and do web searches for "active Usenet groups."


> I mean, I'm a retro computing enthusiast, I like old systems
> and have quite a few. But even I can see that a group about
> 386bsd has long lost its relevance, or that several groups
> for every obsolete platform there is could maybe be reorganised
> in more broader groups.

alt.folklore.computers has evolved into a group for retro computing 
enthusiasts. That might be the right place to direct any new people who 
are into that. 


-- 
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4147

In article <MPG.4470e6e2c65d62b8989e95
@news.eternal-september.org>, 
thetruemelissa@gmail.com says...
> 
> People log on and check a few groups they 
used to 
> like, find them empty, and decide Usenet's already dead. Pruning dead 
> groups helps the whole Usenet survive.

That is exactly my reaction. I keep Usenet 
for a few active groups like comp.text.tex 
and occasionally check on other groups that 
used to interest me. But they are dead...
> 
> Now that the spam problem is under control, Usenet is blessedly free 
> from corporatism. If it becomes more popular, corporations will turn up 
> soon enough. 

I have never understood why people feed the 
coffers of Meta and other companies if they 
could have the same thing on Usenet without 
all their data being sucked off by Big 
Business.
> 
> > Anyway, if it's dead groups we're combining, then what is the
> > harm? The worst that can happen is that instead of ten dead
> > groups you now have one dead group.
> 
> Exactly. The recombined groups won't magically spring back to life, but 
> potential new users will see the groups with traffic instead of having 
> to hunt around and do web searches for "active Usenet groups."

I see it the same way. Either we do something 
now and hope for the best, or we just stand 
by and watch Usenet go completely down the 
sink. 

And yes, whatever you do (not) do, somebody 
will be angry because they have to change how 
they were doing things. But
- in a dead group, the number of these people 
will be, by definition, small.
- well, that's democracy. Some people see 
that things happen; others, that they don't 
happen. Many watch how things happen, but the 
vast majority has no idea what the h*** is 
happening. Democracy is the worst goverment 
system possible -- except all the others.

The one thing valuable and worth saving in 
many groups is their FAQ. That often 
contained valuable info especially for 
newbies. If groups are combined, their FAQs 
should be, too. And, yes, I am willing to do 
that for a group that interests me, like 
comp.lang.pascal.*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4151

Deleting groups does not address the actual reasons why
Usenet declined in the first place.

Activity alone has never been the sole measure of a group's
value. Some groups exist because they represent a specific
subject, culture, language, or community, even if traffic is
low. Removing them may simplify the group list, but it also
makes Usenet narrower and less diverse.

And once groups are removed, recreating them later is far
more difficult than simply leaving them alone. The cost of
keeping a quiet group is minimal. The cost of permanently
removing a legitimate group can be much higher.

I am also not convinced that pruning groups will attract new
users. Most new users today discover communities through
search engines, recommendations, or archives, not by
manually browsing long active newsgroup lists like people
did in the 1980s.


>>>>> "Engelbert" == Engelbert Buxbaum <engelbert_buxbaum@hotmail.com> writes:

    Engelbert> In article <MPG.4470e6e2c65d62b8989e95
    Engelbert> @news.eternal-september.org>,
    Engelbert> thetruemelissa@gmail.com says...
    >> 
    >> People log on and check a few groups they
    Engelbert> used to
    >> like, find them empty, and decide Usenet's already
    >> dead. Pruning
    Engelbert> dead
    >> groups helps the whole Usenet survive.

    Engelbert> That is exactly my reaction. I keep Usenet
    Engelbert> for a few active groups like comp.text.tex
    Engelbert> and occasionally check on other groups that
    Engelbert> used to interest me. But they are dead...
    >> 
    >> Now that the spam problem is under control, Usenet is
    >> blessedly free from corporatism. If it becomes more
    >> popular, corporations will turn
    Engelbert> up
    >> soon enough.

    Engelbert> I have never understood why people feed the
    Engelbert> coffers of Meta and other companies if they
    Engelbert> could have the same thing on Usenet without
    Engelbert> all their data being sucked off by Big
    Engelbert> Business.
    >> 
    >> > Anyway, if it's dead groups we're combining, then
    >> what is the > harm? The worst that can happen is that
    >> instead of ten dead > groups you now have one dead
    >> group.
    >> 
    >> Exactly. The recombined groups won't magically spring
    >> back to life,
    Engelbert> but
    >> potential new users will see the groups with traffic
    >> instead of
    Engelbert> having
    >> to hunt around and do web searches for "active Usenet
    >> groups."

    Engelbert> I see it the same way. Either we do something
    Engelbert> now and hope for the best, or we just stand
    Engelbert> by and watch Usenet go completely down the
    Engelbert> sink.

    Engelbert> And yes, whatever you do (not) do, somebody
    Engelbert> will be angry because they have to change how
    Engelbert> they were doing things. But - in a dead
    Engelbert> group, the number of these people will be, by
    Engelbert> definition, small.  - well, that's
    Engelbert> democracy. Some people see that things
    Engelbert> happen; others, that they don't happen. Many
    Engelbert> watch how things happen, but the vast
    Engelbert> majority has no idea what the h*** is
    Engelbert> happening. Democracy is the worst goverment
    Engelbert> system possible -- except all the others.

    Engelbert> The one thing valuable and worth saving in
    Engelbert> many groups is their FAQ. That often
    Engelbert> contained valuable info especially for
    Engelbert> newbies. If groups are combined, their FAQs
    Engelbert> should be, too. And, yes, I am willing to do
    Engelbert> that for a group that interests me, like
    Engelbert> comp.lang.pascal.*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4155

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:

> I have never understood why people feed the
> coffers of Meta and other companies if they
> could have the same thing on Usenet without
> all their data being sucked off by Big
> Business.

Because . . .

Usenet is no longer "the place to go" to find information.  Vendors 
offer technical support via their websites.  Aspiring "experts" create 
YouTube videos or host podcasts.  When people have questions, they go to 
the web for answers.

And the population as a whole doesn't care about "feeding the coffers of 
Meta". Those that do realize what they're doing are willing to trade off 
a bit of their souls in exchange for the information that they seek.

Then there's the technical aspect.  Gone are the days when ISPs 
routinely provided both hardware and software support for UseNet.  I 
wonder what fraction of the user base is inclined to download software 
and find a provider for UseNet.  Methinks the fraction is tiny.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4150

>>>>> "The" == The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> writes:

    The> I think you're right. People log on and check a few
    The> groups they used to like, find them empty, and
    The> decide Usenet's already dead. Pruning dead groups
    The> helps the whole Usenet survive.

I do not think removing groups will suddenly make Usenet
look more alive. People are not leaving because there are
too many groups; they are leaving because the modern
Internet already replaced most casual discussion with
centralized platforms years ago.


    The> Now that the spam problem is under control, Usenet
    The> is blessedly free from corporatism. If it becomes
    The> more popular, corporations will turn up soon
    The> enough.
    The> Exactly. The recombined groups won't magically
    The> spring back to life, but potential new users will
    The> see the groups with traffic instead of having to
    The> hunt around and do web searches for "active Usenet
    The> groups."

Low traffic does not automatically mean useless. Many
Usenet groups were always niche, slow, or highly
specialized. That was part of Usenet culture long before the
Web existed.

As for merging or removing groups, history shows that
combining quiet groups rarely revives discussion. Usually it
just destroys the identity and continuity of the original
groups while producing one larger quiet group instead.



    The> -- The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
    The> United States of America - North America - Earth
    The> Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group Virgo
    The> Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4156

Verily, in article <86tss5jwcy.fsf@gmail.com>, did moses.mason@gmail.com 
deliver unto us this message:
> Low traffic does not automatically mean useless. Many
> Usenet groups were always niche, slow, or highly
> specialized. That was part of Usenet culture long before the
> Web existed.

I haven't heard anyone say they were useless. The difficulty is that 
they're hard to find.

How does someone tell the difference between a low-traffic group which 
is empty now and a dead group?

Some of the alt.support.* groups are in that former category. There's 
seldom any traffic, but people are still subscribed, and they pop out of 
the woodwork when someone appears needing help. The only reason I know 
this is still true is that I sent up signal flares. Many people just see 
no traffic and move on, surely. 
 
> As for merging or removing groups, history shows that
> combining quiet groups rarely revives discussion. Usually it
> just destroys the identity and continuity of the original
> groups while producing one larger quiet group instead.

What examples are you thinking of?

Would you be okay with combining end nodes where everything is 
crossposted anyway?


-- 
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4157

>>>>> "The" == The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> writes:

    The> I haven't heard anyone say they were useless. The
    The> difficulty is that they're hard to find.

    The> How does someone tell the difference between a
    The> low-traffic group which is empty now and a dead
    The> group?

I think the best way to find out is to hear from the actual
users of those groups instead of just speculating here. That
is why I keep asking for this RfD to be crossposted to those
groups.



    The> What examples are you thinking of?

    The> Would you be okay with combining end nodes where
    The> everything is crossposted anyway?

A few examples can be found by looking back through earlier
posts in this group. For example, removing
rec.arts.comics.reviews and rec.arts.comics.info did not
make rec.arts.comics any more active.

I can not speak for all of them, but sometimes people
crosspost precisely because the groups have different
audiences or slightly different focuses. 


    The> -- The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
    The> United States of America - North America - Earth
    The> Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group Virgo
    The> Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4158

Verily, in article <86bjecjeuk.fsf@gmail.com>, did moses.mason@gmail.com 
deliver unto us this message:
> 
> >>>>> "The" == The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>     The> I haven't heard anyone say they were useless. The
>     The> difficulty is that they're hard to find.
> 
>     The> How does someone tell the difference between a
>     The> low-traffic group which is empty now and a dead
>     The> group?
> 
> I think the best way to find out is to hear from the actual
> users of those groups instead of just speculating here.

We were speaking of new users browsing for groups. If a new user sees a 
group with zero messages, there's no way to tell if the group is dead or 
still has sporadic activity. 

> That
> is why I keep asking for this RfD to be crossposted to those
> groups.
 
If you want it crossposted, why not crosspost it? 


> I can not speak for all of them, but sometimes people
> crosspost precisely because the groups have different
> audiences or slightly different focuses. 

We just don't have enough people left for that kind of specific focus. 

-- 
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4160

On 5/19/26 6:33 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
> 
> If a new user sees a
> group with zero messages, there's no way to tell if the group is dead or
> still has sporadic activity.
> 

And if the new user takes a chance by posting a message, but never 
receives a reply because the group is dead, then how likely is it that 
that user will stick around afterward?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4161

>>>>> "The" == The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> writes:

    The> We were speaking of new users browsing for
    The> groups. If a new user sees a group with zero
    The> messages, there's no way to tell if the group is
    The> dead or still has sporadic activity.

A group with low traffic is not necessarily “dead”,
though. Many Usenet groups have always been
slow-moving. That is part of the nature of asynchronous
discussion.

Also, I do not think most new users today browse long group
lists the way people did in the 1990s. Many arrive through
archives, search engines, recommendations, or links to
specific discussions. In that situation, the existence of
specialized groups is more of a strength than a weakness.
 

    The> If you want it crossposted, why not crosspost it?

Because I am not the one initiating the RfD. I think the
responsibility to notify the affected groups should
primarily fall on the people proposing their removal.


    The> We just don't have enough people left for that kind
    The> of specific focus.

    The> -- The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
    The> United States of America - North America - Earth
    The> Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group Virgo
    The> Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4159

Am 19.05.26 um 12:01 schrieb Moses:
> I think the best way to find out is to hear from the actual
> users of those groups instead of just speculating here. That
> is why I keep asking for this RfD to be crossposted to those
> groups.

Official RfDs that affect a certain group will be posted to the affected 
group, so every reader can notice it.

-- 
Gruß
Marco

Spam bitte an abfalleimer2001@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4154

The True Melissa wrote:
> Verily, in article <10u6kbv$2asv$1@nntp.sonologic.net>, did gmc@metro.cx
> deliver unto us this message:
>>
>> I have (granted, merely anecdotal) evidence that the number
>> of dead groups with obsolete subjects scares new users off.
>> People returning or new users perceive usenet as a wasteland
>> full of obsolete subjects that no-one is interested in any
>> more and see no reason to become interested themselves.
> 
> I think you're right. People log on and check a few groups they used to
> like, find them empty, and decide Usenet's already dead.

Take your statement above, substitute the word "gone" for "empty". 
Exactly how is the conclusion that UseNet is dead going to change when 
this "people" can't find the group, as opposed to can't find traffic in it?

> Pruning dead groups helps the whole Usenet survive.

This conclusion does not follow from your premise.

>> Anyway, if it's dead groups we're combining, then what is the
>> harm? The worst that can happen is that instead of ten dead
>> groups you now have one dead group.

Let me give you two "harms".

Reorganizations are not trivial.  It's easy to say "combine ten groups" 
but what ten groups are you going to combine, and into what?  This is 
worth [or not worth] endless discussion since there is no "right" 
answer.  No matter what the final configuration is, some folks will be 
very upset.  In the process, many hours of time will have been wasted 
and 0+0 is still zero.

The second "harm" is one that several of us have mentioned - history 
will be lost when the pruned groups are actually removed.  Please do not 
throw out the ever-popular "Just create an archive" because that simply 
will not happen.  I am not saying that there is a vast amount of truly 
valuable history in newsgroups which are no longer used, but remember 
that I don't think that this whole concept of "pruning" will accomplish 
anything positive, so it doesn't take a big negative to counter zero.

> Exactly. The recombined groups won't magically spring back to life, but
> potential new users will see the groups with traffic instead of having
> to hunt around and do web searches for "active Usenet groups."

Wait.  First you say that the dead groups won't magically spring back to 
life, then you say that new users will see groups with traffic.  Which 
is it?  I've pointed out that if you combine ten dead groups into one, 
you get one dead group.  To me that is not a speculation; it is as 
obvious as 0+0=0.

>> I mean, I'm a retro computing enthusiast, I like old systems
>> and have quite a few. But even I can see that a group about
>> 386bsd has long lost its relevance, or that several groups
>> for every obsolete platform there is could maybe be reorganised
>> in more broader groups.

I find it fascinating that you're saying "I care about computing 
history" at the same time you're saying "Throw out all the 
contemporaneous discussions about 386bsd".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4163

Hi Koen,

> Indeed, usenet is not what it was 20+ years ago. A lot has happened,
> but usenet has tried to stay the same. A living usenet, to me, is a
> usenet that adapts, that heals its wounds, and moves forward in a
> leaner configuration, with less dillution of the few active people
> over too many groups.

Exactly: a living Usenet adapts and moves forward.


> What I've seen is that the management group has put forward proposals,
> and that these have been discussed and put to a vote. That sounds like
> a decent democratic process.

FWIW, the de.* hierarchy is currently rationalizing their newsgroups and 
proceeds to public votes.  A majority of voters is in favour of the 
removal of empty, no longer used newsgroups.  Quoting the results:

  Ja  Nein : 2/3? >=15? : ang.? : Abstimmungsgegenstand
---- ---- : ---- ----- : ----- : ---------------------------------------
   34    4 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von de.comp.os.msdos
   36    2 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von de.comp.os.os2
   35    4 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von de.comp.os.vms
   35    2 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von
           :            :       : d.r.sport.motorsport.formel1
   35    2 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von
           :            :       : d.r.sport.motorsport.motorrad
   36    2 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von de.sci.genealogie
   36    3 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von de.soc.handicap
   35    6 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von
           :            :       : d.c.hardware.cpu+mainboard.amd
   34    6 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von
           :            :       : d.c.hardware.cpu+mainboard.intel
   38    4 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von d.c.hardware.scanner
   35    4 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von de.rec.alpinismus
   34    4 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von de.soc.subkultur.gothic
   33   10 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von de.comp.sys.amiga
   34    9 :  Ja   Ja   :  Ja   : Loeschung von de.comp.sys.atari
[...]

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Le cercle est le plus long chemin d'un point au même point. » (Tom
   Stoppard, _Every Good Boy Deserves Favour_)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4164

Am 03.06.26 um 23:41 schrieb Julien ÉLIE:
> FWIW, the de.* hierarchy is currently rationalizing their newsgroups and 
> proceeds to public votes.  A majority of voters is in favour of the 
> removal of empty, no longer used newsgroups.  Quoting the results:

Indeed - and this has been done many times.

Please continue with your RfD.

-- 
Gruß
Marco

Spam bitte an abfalleimer2001@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4167

Hi Marco,

>> FWIW, the de.* hierarchy is currently rationalizing their newsgroups 
>> and proceeds to public votes.  A majority of voters is in favour of 
>> the removal of empty, no longer used newsgroups.  Quoting the results:
> 
> Indeed - and this has been done many times.
> 
> Please continue with your RfD.

Thanks for the proposal and your support!
Nonetheless, I do not plan on continuing.  I just wanted to discuss a 
possibility of rationalization, with an example of what could be done 
for news.* and talk.*.  The discussion was pretty interesting anyway! 
But I had not the intention to go further and analyze everything in 
details to provide all the information I usually read in previous RfDs. 
It's great to do that in RfDs, I agree and congratulate the work, but 
unfortunately I do not have enough spare time to spend on that (I have 
already enough other activities on Usenet stuff).

Besides, there are a lot of newsgroups in the Big-8, especially in 
comp.* and rec.*, so a per-group discussion would take ages and 
tremendous efforts, with the same arguments and counter-arguments always 
popping...
Even with RfDs containing a list of 20 newsgroups for instance, I bet 
discussions will still challenge each group in the list, which is fine, 
but I am not personally interested in reading and responding, so I'll 
pass my turn.

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Sum, ergo bibo ; bibo, ergo sum. »

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4168

Julien ÉLIE wrote:

> Besides, there are a lot of newsgroups in the Big-8, especially in 
> comp.* and rec.*, so a per-group discussion would take ages and 
> tremendous efforts, with the same arguments and counter-arguments always 
> popping...

Yeah, due to the size of the Big8 and the long time without removals,
a repeat of
| From: Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org>
| Subject: 1st RFD: The Great Downsizing 2011/1
| Message-ID: <great-downsizing-2011-1-rfd-1@news.albasani.net>
| 
|               REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
| 
| This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
| 198 unmoderated newsgroups.
[...]
would probably make more sense.

But ...
> unfortunately I do not have enough spare time to spend on that (I have 
> already enough other activities on Usenet stuff).
... the same is true for me.

-thh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4170

It's good to know that no further action is planned. That
should save everyone a lot of time and discussion.

The discussion was interesting, though.

>>>>> "Julien" == Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:

    Julien> Hi Marco,
    >>> FWIW, the de.* hierarchy is currently rationalizing
    >>> their newsgroups and proceeds to public votes.  A
    >>> majority of voters is in favour of the removal of
    >>> empty, no longer used newsgroups.   Quoting the
    >>> results:
    >> Indeed - and this has been done many times.  Please
    >> continue with your RfD.

    Julien> Thanks for the proposal and your support!
    Julien> Nonetheless, I do not plan on continuing.  I
    Julien> just wanted to discuss a possibility of
    Julien> rationalization, with an example of what could
    Julien> be done for news.* and talk.*.  The discussion
    Julien> was pretty interesting anyway!  But I had not
    Julien> the intention to go further and analyze
    Julien> everything in details to provide all the
    Julien> information I usually read in previous
    Julien> RfDs. It's great to do that in RfDs, I agree and
    Julien> congratulate the work, but unfortunately I do
    Julien> not have enough spare time to spend on that (I
    Julien> have already enough other activities on Usenet
    Julien> stuff).

    Julien> Besides, there are a lot of newsgroups in the
    Julien> Big-8, especially in comp.* and rec.*, so a
    Julien> per-group discussion would take ages and
    Julien> tremendous efforts, with the same arguments and
    Julien> counter-arguments always popping...  Even with
    Julien> RfDs containing a list of 20 newsgroups for
    Julien> instance, I bet discussions will still challenge
    Julien> each group in the list, which is fine, but I am
    Julien> not personally interested in reading and
    Julien> responding, so I'll pass my turn.

    Julien> -- Julien ÉLIE

    Julien> « Sum, ergo bibo ; bibo, ergo sum. »

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4165

Julien ÉLIE wrote:

> FWIW, the de.* hierarchy is currently rationalizing their newsgroups and 
> proceeds to public votes.  A majority of voters is in favour of the 
> removal of empty, no longer used newsgroups. 

Of 91 newsgroups proposed for deletion, 80 have been voted to be
removed, two proposals have been rejected, and 9 are pending. A
proposal needs at least 15 "yes" votes and requires a two-thirds
majority to succeed.

As de.* had 322 newsgroups before, this represents a cut of 24,9% to
27,6% percent (depending on the 9 pending groups).

Most of the proposals pertained to groups that had seen (almost) no
new posts for years; some concerned large sub-hierarchies with many
specialized groups with a narrow thematic focus, each with just a
handful of posts, which were to be removed n favor of more posts to
the more general .misc group. That probably is the main reason for the
nearly unanimous results.

Removing groups in de.* is a slow and quite laborius process, as we
still do a full public discussion and voting procedure for each group
(or groups in the same sub-hierarchy), taking about two month from
first proposal to rmgroup, but it works (for now).

de.* is not the only TLH doing some house cleaning; fr.* has removed
79 of 242 groups this year (as you well know ;)), representing a cut
of about 33%.

-thh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4166

Hi Thomas,

> As de.* had 322 newsgroups before, this represents a cut of 24,9% to
> 27,6% percent (depending on the 9 pending groups).

I guess the list of the Big-8 groups could similarly very easily be cut 
of that amount.
And probably more as there had been 56 removals in de.* in 2022, the 
last time a rationalization took place.


> Most of the proposals pertained to groups that had seen (almost) no
> new posts for years; some concerned large sub-hierarchies with many
> specialized groups with a narrow thematic focus, each with just a
> handful of posts, which were to be removed n favor of more posts to
> the more general .misc group. That probably is the main reason for the
> nearly unanimous results.

We have similar criteria in fr.*.

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Les grands voyages ont ceci de merveilleux que leur enchantement
   commence avant le départ même. On ouvre les atlas, on rêve sur les
   cartes. On répète les noms magnifiques des villes inconnues… » (Joseph
   Kessel)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4169

In article <10u583n$mt79$1@dont-email.me>, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

>it's Usenet so you can guarantee that a few folks will be upset, 
> no matter what you do.  (Including if you do nothing.)

The truest of all truths.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | news.groups.proposals

csiph-web