From Newsgroup: news.groups

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.

. . .

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

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/

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

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.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

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.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

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.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

I refuse to post a followup in a configging discussion in the moderated newsgroup.

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

Am 10.05.26 um 19:20 schrieb Koen Martens:

I'm trying to get back into usenet after 20+ years of absence,
and having to wade through endless lists of dead newsgroups or
groups that seem interesting but are just full of spam or this
one person posting nonsense daily is just reinforcing the image
many have that usenet is dead and has been for decades.

That's why I advocate for rationalizing it.

You are advocating it because a hierarchy administrator has one tool to
use. A problem was identified. The tool you have to use cannot solve the problem of users not starting discussions, but you want to use the tool
anyway.

All the past reorganizations, like this one, were reorganizations for
the sake of just doing something. It's hard, if not impossible, to
identify a problem that was solved.

Because you ignore past experience and refuse to acknowledge your utter
lack of control over users, this is delusional thinking.

As far as the endless complaint about "wading through" endless lists of
dead newsgroup, wow, you aren't using your newsreader correctly. I have
trn set to display an index screen that lists the number of unread
articles in subscribed groups, and doesn't list groups without unread
articles. If I'm looking for a specific group to post to, then I may
have to list subscribed groups. Even then, I don't "wade through". I use
a keyword or string search to find the group.

As far as groups that are "just full of spam", you are using the wrong
News site that has inadequate spam countermeasures.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Verily, in article <10ua3bm$121b6$1@dont-email.me>, did ahk@chinet.com
deliver unto us this message:

All the past reorganizations, like this one, were reorganizations for
the sake of just doing something. It's hard, if not impossible, to
identify a problem that was solved.

I find it easy to identify the problems being solved. The original Great Renaming created seven major hierarchies which organized the news
better, which was important in an era when most of us still typed the
group name. The addition of humanities.* was to solve the problem of
Usenet having no good place for that. Philosophy was stuck under talk.*,
for example, since there wasn't a better place.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:

I find it easy to identify the problems being solved. The original Great >Renaming created seven major hierarchies which organized the news
better, which was important in an era when most of us still typed the
group name. The addition of humanities.* was to solve the problem of
Usenet having no good place for that. Philosophy was stuck under talk.*,
for example, since there wasn't a better place.

The Big Renaming cleaned up a huge mess where science threads, random
banter, and flame wars were scattered all over hierarchies like
"mod", "net", and "fa". This overhaul funneled those distinct vibes
into sci.* (etc.) and talk., which let universities that only cared
about serious research opt out of the talk.* noise without any hassle.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Verily, in article <renaming-20260516180630@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
did ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de deliver unto us this message:

The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:

I find it easy to identify the problems being solved. The original Great >Renaming created seven major hierarchies which organized the news
better, which was important in an era when most of us still typed the >group name. The addition of humanities.* was to solve the problem of >Usenet having no good place for that. Philosophy was stuck under talk.*, >for example, since there wasn't a better place.

The Big Renaming cleaned up a huge mess where science threads, random
banter, and flame wars were scattered all over hierarchies like
"mod", "net", and "fa". This overhaul funneled those distinct vibes
into sci.* (etc.) and talk., which let universities that only cared
about serious research opt out of the talk.* noise without any hassle.

I maintain that humanities.* is better, though I agree the original
Great Renaming was the vital one. I would have liked hum.*, for visual consistency with the others, but I did vote in favor of this.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:

did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:

All the past reorganizations, like this one, were reorganizations for
the sake of just doing something. It's hard, if not impossible, to
identify a problem that was solved.

I find it easy to identify the problems being solved. The original Great >Renaming created seven major hierarchies which organized the news
better, which was important in an era when most of us still typed the
group name. The addition of humanities.* was to solve the problem of
Usenet having no good place for that. Philosophy was stuck under talk.*,
for example, since there wasn't a better place.

talk.* was literally intended for discussion. What was wrong with that?

alt.* began in the Great Renaming because there was no replacement for
certain net.* groups, and the "controversy" about sex discussion. Later,
we got free.* 'cuz, sigh, alt.* had vague rules.

tale simply wanted humanities.*. It never ended up being the "big"
hierarchy he claimed it would be. Its groups were never highly active.
When they were active, most had low volumes of discussion traffic at
best. You are skipping over all of the many disruptive renamings after
the Big 7 that tale forced through because he had the power to do so, like rmgrouping numerous groups in rec.* and newgrouping replaceents in misc.*,
and rmgrouping various talk.* groups, newgrouping replacements elsewhere.

Then we had tale's miscification insanity in which a general discussion couldn't be held at the second or third hierarchy level; it had to take
place in a *.misc group. tale was going to force lots more till people
finally let him know they'd had enough. I was amused with Julien's
proposed rmgroups which proposed to remove some of the *.misc groups.

The only reorganization I would point to that solved an actual problem
was incorporating the INET groups into Usenet. Russ did this shortly
after taking over. The problem being solved was no checkgroups could be
issued. tale used to issue lists with and without the INET groups. These
groups were all gated mailing lists that received Big 8-like names,
although by the time Russ acted, there wasn't a lot of traffic left.

When skirv took over, he got fed up that there was a lack of decent
proposals, so he simply newgrouped two dozen "I just know it!" groups,
none of which were wanted. Many of these were redundant of active alt.*
groups. Not one found an audience. In a few cases, skirv got so much
criticism for the unwanted redundant groups that he rmgrouped a few of
them.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Verily, in article <10uacvi$152a4$1@dont-email.me>, did ahk@chinet.com
deliver unto us this message:

The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:

did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:

talk.* was literally intended for discussion. What was wrong with

that?

By that reasoning, why not just divide the whole Usenet into sci.* and
rec.*? IMO it's not crazy to have more specific categories.

As more people entered Usenet, there was more discussion and more kinds
of discussion. It made sense to make a hierarchy specifically for the humanities, IMO.

Of course, at this point we probably could go back to just net.* and
mod.*.

tale simply wanted humanities.*.

That's just not true. A lot of people wanted it.

Then we had tale's miscification insanity in which a general discussion couldn't be held at the second or third hierarchy level; it had to take
place in a *.misc group. tale was going to force lots more till people finally let him know they'd had enough. I was amused with Julien's
proposed rmgroups which proposed to remove some of the *.misc groups.

I gather you didn't like tale. I never had any problems with his administration.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:

did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:

The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:

did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:

talk.* was literally intended for discussion. What was wrong with that?

By that reasoning, why not just divide the whole Usenet into sci.* and >rec.*? IMO it's not crazy to have more specific categories.

They chose top-level hierarchies which were very broad categories, and
largely miscellaneous. Humanities discussion could have fit under any of
them. All that should have mattered was using similar naming patterns as
groups were added. What exactly was the difference between soc.*
and talk.*?

As more people entered Usenet, there was more discussion and more kinds
of discussion. It made sense to make a hierarchy specifically for the >humanities, IMO.

History tells us otherwise. Groups newgrouped without considering actual
Usenet discussion tend to fail.

Of course, at this point we probably could go back to just net.* and
mod.*.

tale simply wanted humanities.*.

That's just not true. A lot of people wanted it.

Zero users whose groups got rmgrouped in yet another renaming certainly
did not want disruption. Reorganizations don't improve discussion.

I'll grant you that splitting up net.* was mecessary, but mod.* should
have remained.

Then we had tale's miscification insanity in which a general discussion >>couldn't be held at the second or third hierarchy level; it had to take >>place in a *.misc group. tale was going to force lots more till people >>finally let him know they'd had enough. I was amused with Julien's
proposed rmgroups which proposed to remove some of the *.misc groups.

I gather you didn't like tale. I never had any problems with his >administration.

You gather incorrectly. He was a very nice gentleman. My criticisms
stand.

I raised these points TO YOU, not to tale who hasn't participated
in decades, as your recollection of past reorganizations and how they
fulfilled their justification was highly selective. It was just coincidence
how you left out all of the utterly pointless if not harmful ones.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

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?
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Verily, in article <10uapn8$18e1q$1@dont-email.me>, did ahk@chinet.com
deliver unto us this message:

I raised these points TO YOU, not to tale who hasn't participated
in decades, as your recollection of past reorganizations and how they fulfilled their justification was highly selective. It was just coincidence how you left out all of the utterly pointless if not harmful ones

That seems a little gratuitious. You specifically asked for positive
changes, so that's what I listed. I agree with several of your points.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:

did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:

I raised these points TO YOU, not to tale who hasn't participated
in decades, as your recollection of past reorganizations and how they >>fulfilled their justification was highly selective. It was just coincidence >>how you left out all of the utterly pointless if not harmful ones

That seems a little gratuitious. You specifically asked for positive >changes, so that's what I listed. I agree with several of your points.

You made a good point about the Great Renaming, which solved some problems
but created others, hence we got alt.*.

The need for humanities.* was handwaiving.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

You made a good point about the Great Renaming, which solved some problems >but created others, hence we got alt.*.

For example, there was a need for rec.drugs.i.am.totaly.wasted but there
were arguments against it passing. Some people (namely Richard Sexton) advocated for talk.drugs.i.am.totaly.wasted even though it can be very
hard to actually talk when one is totally wasted. So in the end, we
finally got alt.drugs.i.am.totaly.wasted.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

You made a good point about the Great Renaming, which solved some problems >>but created others, hence we got alt.*.

For example, there was a need for rec.drugs.i.am.totaly.wasted but there
were arguments against it passing. Some people (namely Richard Sexton) >advocated for talk.drugs.i.am.totaly.wasted even though it can be very
hard to actually talk when one is totally wasted. So in the end, we
finally got alt.drugs.i.am.totaly.wasted.

Hehehehe. alt.* was off to a fine start!
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2