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