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

Groups > news.groups > #15589 > unrolled thread

Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.*

Back to article view | Back to news.groups

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-05-15 15:48 +0000
    Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) - 2026-05-15 16:10 +0000
      Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-05-15 16:36 +0000
      Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-05-16 11:11 +0000
        Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-05-16 11:52 +0000
        Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.* not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-17 09:24 +1000

#15589 — Re: RfD: Rationalization of talk.*

I refuse to participate in a configging discussion in the moderated
newsgroup.

Koen Martens <gmc@metro.cx> wrote:
>Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

>>Yes, of course all of us would love to have a "living Usenet", but 
>>you're assuming that the removal of "tombstones and ancient threads" 

>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.

That's not "evidence, merely anecdotal". That's something you just made up.
Anecdotal evidence might be hearing from specific new users who made
actual complaints along these lines, not just assumptions on your part.

If someone subscribes to a newsgroup but sees no threads he wants to
read or post a followup to, and is unwilling to start a thread to start
an on-topic question, it's irrelevant whether the group he proposed to
is alive or dead. That user is NOT going to save Usenet.

We have years of experience with Usenet. Sure, plenty of Usenet groups
got newgrouped despite no audience whatsoever, and that especially
includes the Big 8 with all those renaming and reorganization efforts.
But plenty of groups started with at least a moderate amount of
traffic... and then died. That tells you right there that OTHER PEOPLE
PARTICIPATED has no bearing whatsoever on whether any particular
subscriber might participate. In fact, the argument is entirely
invalidated that having a sustainable level of traffic in a group any
given point in its history is going to maintain a sustainable level of
traffic.

The number of newsgroups doesn't matter.

We cannot conclude that mass rmgrouping will force indefinite
sustainable levels of traffic into the remaining groups. Hell, we cannot
even conclude that there will be sustainable levels of traffic in the
short run.

That's not what past reorganizations accomplish. No past reorganization has
accomplished that.

If Usenet is still around in a decade, configging discussions will still
be filled with the same delusional thinking. A hierarchy administrator
believes that the next proposed reorganization will force people to
post. The next proponent, who lacks a history of posting on topic on
Usenet, will still complain that there's no where to post, that the
group he proposes is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and he just
knows that the newgroup in and of itself will start new discussion that
didn't previously exist on Usenet, something no newgroup has ever
accomplished.

Can everybody just knock off the delusional thinking? It's really not
possible to have a meaningful configging discussion with any of you.

>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.

It's so odd, then, that this dissatisfaction doesn't actually force
anyone to post to Usenet, despite the lack of centralized control.

I didn't to say that out loud. We aren't supposed to confront B8MB
members that they are hierarchy administrators only and are not Usenet
central.

>>will result in a revival of UseNet.  I submit that if you combine ten 
>>dead newsgoups into one, you end up with one dead newsgroup.

>I disagree. I haven't seen a convincing argument or evidence to
>support that conjecture. I might have missed it, because as I said
>I just came into this discussion, and my news server hasn't been up
>for more than a year so I don't have articles older than
>that.

Reorganizations do not force users to post. They never have and they
never will. The way Usenet works is that the user decides for himself
whether to post, either a new topic or a followup. Even if a group has a
sustainable level of discussion in it today doesn't mean it will have a
sustainable level of discussion in it tomorrow, else no group would have
died.

The other Usenet rule is that no one proposing reorganization will admit
that he utterly lacks power to force any user to post within the
parameters of how the hierarchy administrator who would impose the
reorganization believes it will.

>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.

It's always harmful to give into delusional thinking, repeating and
repeating and repeating all the mistakes of the past.

Maybe world peace will result from the next devastating war, too, and
unlike nearly every peace treaty negotiated in the past, it won't set up
the seeds for the next war.

Stop giving in to delusional thinking. There is one thing and one thing
only that will save Usenet.

Stop sitting on your hands. You be the one to start the next interesting
discussion.

>>>. . . 

>>Usenet is not what it was 20+ years ago.  It never will be.  The root 
>>issue is a lack of users.  There are a few newsgroups with a critical 
>>mass of participants that is sufficient to sustain a meaningful 
>>discussion.  Pruning dead groups might help nudge existing users into 

>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.

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Usenet is the same as it's always been, the collective result of
individual action. Someone puts up a News server and find peers and
attracts users. That's a News site. No central permission is required.
Discussion exists to the extent that users are will to start a
discussion and to say interesting things.

The platitudes you expressed are irrelevant. If someone posts something
interesting on topic, Usenet thrives. To the extent that no one is
willing to start discussion, Usenet dies.

When the fundamental nature of Usenet never changes, adaptation is
irrelevant.

I'm going to say something delusional. Some day, people will stop
insisting that they can control how and where to hold a discussion, that
reorganizations are the key to improving discussion, and that newgroups
will create new discussion. Instead, users will simply choose to start
interesting discussions by posting and not worrying about how they can
impose control of the discussion in an unmoderated environment.

>>. . . 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#15590

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Koen Martens <gmc@metro.cx> wrote:
>>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.
> 
> That's not "evidence, merely anecdotal". That's something you just made up.
> Anecdotal evidence might be hearing from specific new users who made
> actual complaints along these lines, not just assumptions on your part.

That is, indeed, what happened. I did not make that up. I've
had two people I tried to get interested tell me exactly that
after they gave it a try for a bit.

> Stop sitting on your hands. You be the one to start the next interesting
> discussion.

I'm doing just that. At least, I post about things I find interesting,
have interesting discussions with people who seem to have a shared
interest, so I don't think I'm sitting on my hands.

Cheers,

Koen

-- 
Software architecture & engineering: https://www.sonologic.se/
Sci-fi: https://www.koenmartens.nl/
Retrocomputing videos: https://retroscandinavian.eu/

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

#15591

Koen Martens <gmc@metro.cx> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Koen Martens <gmc@metro.cx> wrote:

>>>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.

>>That's not "evidence, merely anecdotal". That's something you just made up.
>>Anecdotal evidence might be hearing from specific new users who made
>>actual complaints along these lines, not just assumptions on your part.

>That is, indeed, what happened. I did not make that up. I've
>had two people I tried to get interested tell me exactly that
>after they gave it a try for a bit.

Not posting to a subscribed newsgroup if one doesn't see discussion of
interest is not "giving it a try for a bit".

>>Stop sitting on your hands. You be the one to start the next interesting
>>discussion.

>I'm doing just that. At least, I post about things I find interesting,
>have interesting discussions with people who seem to have a shared
>interest, so I don't think I'm sitting on my hands.

That's good.

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

#15592

gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) wrote or quoted:
>That is, indeed, what happened. I did not make that up. I've
>had two people I tried to get interested tell me exactly that
>after they gave it a try for a bit.

  There have not been any discussions in comp.lang.haskell for
  years. I posted to it recently, and immediately got two good
  answers. It just worked, like that Latin dictionary that rests
  on your shelf for years, but when you then need to look up a
  Latin word one day, it's there. No need to throw it away.

  Now, I'm not a newbie, but those newbies, they just do not
  exist. But Usenet oldtimers still do exists. So maybe it's more
  efficient to keep the oldtimers in (possible) than to get newbies
  in (won't happen whether you delete some newsgroups or not).

  I also remember how Lars asked a Perl question on 2026-01-14 
  off topic in comp.os.linux.misc:

|Posted here, beause I can't find a live perl group; if you
|know of one, please refer me there.

  and Eli replied:

|I subscribe to comp.lang.perl.misc, and I suspect many others do, too.
|We just don't have questions coming in.

  . So maybe Lars learned something and will post his Perl question
  on topic the next time.

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

#15593

Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) wrote or quoted:
>>That is, indeed, what happened. I did not make that up. I've
>>had two people I tried to get interested tell me exactly that
>>after they gave it a try for a bit.

>  There have not been any discussions in comp.lang.haskell for
>  years. I posted to it recently, and immediately got two good
>  answers. It just worked, like that Latin dictionary that rests
>  on your shelf for years, but when you then need to look up a
>  Latin word one day, it's there. No need to throw it away.

>  Now, I'm not a newbie, but those newbies, they just do not
>  exist. But Usenet oldtimers still do exists. So maybe it's more
>  efficient to keep the oldtimers in (possible) than to get newbies
>  in (won't happen whether you delete some newsgroups or not).

>  I also remember how Lars asked a Perl question on 2026-01-14 
>  off topic in comp.os.linux.misc:

>|Posted here, beause I can't find a live perl group; if you
>|know of one, please refer me there.

>  and Eli replied:

>|I subscribe to comp.lang.perl.misc, and I suspect many others do, too.
>|We just don't have questions coming in.

>  . So maybe Lars learned something and will post his Perl question
>  on topic the next time.

Now, that's anecdotal evidence that an on-topic discussion can happen by
someone starting the discussion, even posting to a group that hasn't
been used in a very long time.

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

#15601

Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) wrote or quoted:
>>That is, indeed, what happened. I did not make that up. I've
>>had two people I tried to get interested tell me exactly that
>>after they gave it a try for a bit.
> 
>   There have not been any discussions in comp.lang.haskell for
>   years. I posted to it recently, and immediately got two good
>   answers. It just worked, like that Latin dictionary that rests
>   on your shelf for years, but when you then need to look up a
>   Latin word one day, it's there. No need to throw it away.

Usually I don't have such luck posting to dead groups. However I
still often prefer it to posting in broad-topic groups, or those
plagued by OT discussion, where I'm then compelled to wade through
mountains of irrelevent responses only to find nobody was any help
there either. This pruning idea promises to remove my option of
posting to the "dead" niche groups, in which case I often wouldn't
post new topics to the busy groups I'm already avoiding, I just
wouldn't post at all. It'd make Usenet even more dead for me.

>   I also remember how Lars asked a Perl question on 2026-01-14 
>   off topic in comp.os.linux.misc:

And there's a prime example of a group where I'm skipping most of
the posts, probably including plenty of stuff I'm interested
in, because it's too hard to wade through the OT stuff I don't
give a hoot about.

Apparantly that's the Usenet some people want, but why rob me of
the quieter corners of Usenet just to theoretically improve the
looks of a group list? Plus that list is mostly padded out by alt.*
etc. groups anyway?

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | news.groups

csiph-web