ecec at quads.uchicago.edu
Mon Jun 6 18:44:46 EST 1994
In my humble opinion, unnecessary components and general length
of newsgroup titles should be avoided.
Dave is right about the heirarchical nature of the newsgroups
mapping directly to a directory structure and this is not always a
wonderful thing, in fact it is often a real drag (for me that is,
other's mileage may vary).
With the newsreading software that I usually end up with, an
entire directory structure can be created by the press of a key when
you create a kill file for a given newsgroup. A month or so from now,
when "voices for evolution" goes a way, I'd rather search down and destroy
the killfile and related sub-directories associated with
than something like
simply because fewer actions are required.
Addionally, typing long group names when you want
to "go" to them -often with a "go" command of somekind- is more error-
prone the longer the name. Also, some terminal emmulators/newsreader
combinations make it difficult to see long names as you type them. Although
a little ingenuity easily surmounts this particular problem, in most cases,
I don't think that it is safe to assume that the great unwashed masses
of newsgroup-reading users can/should always be relied upon to cope
In short I'd rather see a little more focus directed toward actual
ease of use by the broadest set of *biologists* rather than toward unwarranted
complexity for its own sake. I just can't see how having a name
like bionet.organism.mus rather than bionet.mus (obivously an
hypothetical example) helps anyone determine the content in any meaningful way.
Who, exactly, do the-expanded heirarchy propopents think is going to choose
to open or subscribe to a group based on the additional name?
I think that one really can make a good case for a large tree within
extremely diverse heirarchies like, e.g., comp and rec or even the
dreaded sci, but I just don't see it for bionet.yourcritter
More information about the Bioforum