Hi all,
A second discussion with the example of the talk.* hierarchy.-a It
clearly shows a different use than what we are accustomed to here in
news.*, so it could lead to an interesting discussion about a possible rationalization.
(I guess that humanities.*, misc.* and soc.* will have similarities with talk.* current usage, and that comp.* will rather look like news.*;
rec.* and sci.* a mix of them.)
I would propose to keep the following newsgroups which are still
relevant and/or active:
talk.abortion-a-a-a-a-a-a-a All sorts of discussions and arguments on abortion.
talk.atheism-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Debate about the validity and nature of atheism. talk.bizarre-a-a-a-a-a-a-a The unusual, bizarre, curious, and often interesting.
talk.environment-a-a-a Discussion the state of the environment & what to do. talk.euthanasia-a-a-a-a-a-a-a All aspects of euthanasia. talk.origins-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!). (Moderated)
talk.philosophy.humanism-a-a-a Humanism in the modern world. talk.philosophy.misc-a-a-a Philosophical musings on all topics. talk.politics.animals-a-a-a The use and/or abuse of animals. talk.politics.crypto-a-a-a The relation between cryptography and government. talk.politics.drugs-a-a-a The politics of drug issues. talk.politics.european-union-a-a-a The EU and political integration in Europe.
talk.politics.guns-a-a-a The politics of firearm ownership and (mis)use. talk.politics.medicine-a-a-a The politics and ethics involved with health care.
talk.politics.mideast-a-a-a Discussion & debate over Middle Eastern events. talk.politics.misc-a-a-a Political discussions and ravings of all kinds. talk.politics.soviet-a-a-a Discussion of Soviet politics, domestic and foreign.
talk.politics.theory-a-a-a Theory of politics and political systems.
The rationale is that they are still used for discussions between
several people.
And we could discuss the removal of:
talk.answers-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Repository for periodic USENET articles. (Moderated)
talk.politics.china-a-a-a Discussion of political issues related to China. talk.politics.libertarian-a-a-a Libertarian politics & political philosophy. talk.politics.tibet-a-a-a The politics of Tibet and the Tibetan people. talk.rape-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Discussions on stopping rape; not to be crossposted. talk.religion.bahai-a-a-a Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. talk.religion.buddhism-a-a-a All aspects of Buddhism as religion and philosophy.
talk.religion.course-miracle-a-a-a A Course in Miracles. talk.religion.misc-a-a-a Religious, ethical, & moral implications. talk.religion.newage-a-a-a Esoteric and minority religions & philosophies. talk.religion.pantheism-a-a-a Pantheism in general.
talk.rumors-a-a-a-a-a-a-a For the posting of rumors. talk.us.rhode-island-a-a-a Issues related to the State of Rhode Island, USA.
They are either spammed (like talk.politics.china), empty (like talk.answers), links to various articles without actual discussion (like talk.ripe) or only the place for monologs (at least the other newsgroups
in talk.* have a semblance of discussion).
Even the only poster in talk.religion.course-miracle asked in March 2025 whether someone else was still reading this newsgroups, without any
answer (<vq36u8$12bu9$1@dont-email.me>).
Any thoughts about that proposal?
And we could discuss the removal of:(Moderated)
talk.answers Repository for periodic USENET articles.
talk.religion.misc Religious, ethical, & moral implications. talk.religion.newage Esoteric and minority religions & philosophies. talk.religion.pantheism Pantheism in general.[...]
Any thoughts about that proposal?
"Julien" == Julien +LIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:
Please crosspost to those groups as well if you plan to
propose their removal in the future.
You may be surprised to find that many of them are still active.
"Marco" == Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> writes:
This is totally incorrect. For example,
talk.religion.buddhism still sees posts every few
days. There was a post today, and the most recent reply from
a different user was last month. Another example is
talk.politics.china, which was created in 1993. The
discussions there are in Chinese since 2000 (not spam!) and
the group is still active.
Even with just a quick look, I can already find more
examples, though I cannot speak for all of them. Please
crosspost this proposal to those groups as well. You may
then receive direct feedback from the users there.
This is totally incorrect. For example,
talk.religion.buddhism still sees posts every few
days. There was a post today, and the most recent reply from
a different user was last month.
Another example is
talk.politics.china, which was created in 1993. The
discussions there are in Chinese since 2000 (not spam!) and
the group is still active.
"Marco" == Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> writes:
"Julien" == Julien +LIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:
Just as David said, it does not matter if posts in these
groups go unanswered, if someone wants to reply, they are
free to do so at any time, even after years. Even if some
groups appear temporarily inactive, this does not mean they
lack value. People sometimes dig through old threads for
research, references, or just curiosity. Some posts
provide unique viewpoints you wonnot find elsewhere; losing
them narrows what the community can see.
Moses <moses.mason@gmail.com> wrote:
Just as David said, it does not matter if posts in these
groups go unanswered, if someone wants to reply, they are
free to do so at any time, even after years. Even if some
groups appear temporarily inactive, this does not mean they
lack value. People sometimes dig through old threads for
research, references, or just curiosity. Some posts
provide unique viewpoints you wonnot find elsewhere; losing
them narrows what the community can see.
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but my 2 cents anyway: I'd be
much more interested in a living usenet rather then a usenet
full of tombstones and ancient threads.
I do agree that old
threads might be interesting for an historical perspective, but
maybe a museum is a better place for those?
If there is interest in preserving the old and ancient, one
could set up an online archive of sorts.
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.
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but my 2 cents anyway: I'd be much
more interested in a living usenet rather then a usenet full of
tombstones and ancient threads. I do agree that old threads might be interesting for an historical perspective, but maybe a museum is a
better place for those?
If there is interest in preserving the old and ancient, one could set up
an online archive of sorts.
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.
Once there was much traffic and groups are split.
Now there is few remaining traffic and dead groups should be
deleted.
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but my 2 cents anyway: I'd be
much more interested in a living usenet rather then a usenet
full of tombstones and ancient threads. I do agree that old
threads might be interesting for an historical perspective, but
maybe a museum is a better place for those?
If there is interest in preserving the old and ancient, one
could set up an online archive of sorts.
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.
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
the remaining newsgoup, but the folks who are maintaining those
still-active newsgroups are the ones who keep things going. Some of
them may even be upset that some "management group" is rocking their
boat; it's Usenet so you can guarantee that a few folks will be upset,
no matter what you do. (Including if you do nothing.)
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"
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.
If there is interest in preserving the old and ancient, one
could set up an online archive of sorts.
Yes, "one" could. Are you the one?
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
the remaining newsgoup, but the folks who are maintaining those
still-active newsgroups are the ones who keep things going. Some of
them may even be upset that some "management group" is rocking their
boat; it's Usenet so you can guarantee that a few folks will be upset,
no matter what you do. (Including if you do nothing.)
anecdotal
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.
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.
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.
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.
People log on and check a few groups theyused to
like, find them empty, and decide Usenet's already dead. Pruning dead
groups helps the whole Usenet survive.
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'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.
"Koen" == Koen Martens <gmc@metro.cx> writes:
"The" == The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> writes:
"Engelbert" == Engelbert Buxbaum <engelbert_buxbaum@hotmail.com> writes:
"The" == The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> writes:
"noel" == noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> writes:
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.
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.
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.
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.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:18:46 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,323 |