newsgroup for cacti?

ru.igarashi at usask.ca ru.igarashi at usask.ca
Tue Nov 6 16:28:12 EST 2001


In news.groups Cereoid* <cereoid at prodigy.net> wrote:
>The reason I prefer cross posting the topic is because Bruno (Psycho Cactus)
>cross posted his original proposal and I find it to be in bad taste that he
>insists on continuing the discussion in relative secrecy in a forum that
>does not include those who actually grow the plants. 

That's not really his fault.  The "rules" dictate that any discussion
of a proposed newsgroup appear in news.groups.  What it doesn't say
is that it's ok if it appears in the other groups, but it MUST at
least be crossposted to news.groups.  Since that isn't spelled out,
many proponents interpret that to say, discussion in news.groups
ONLY.   The reason for that rule is that often readers in the other
newsgroups do NOT want to see the discussion in their group, and
the regulars of news.groups will be able to correct mistakes and
answer questions regarding the process.  It's their decision if 
they do, AND they do get notification because the proposal gets 
posted to their group (if the proponent has them on the list).

>If this proposed
>newsgroup is supposed to be for plant enthusiasts, they particularly should
>be allowed to be an active part of the discussion or at least be made aware
>of it. 

Nothing is stopping them.  If they want to discuss it, they can
do it in their group, but it MUST also appear in news.groups.

>(Psycho Cactus) admitted in his original proposal that there are already too
>many forums and groups on the topic. Another one is not needed and would
>serve no useful purpose. 

Ok, time for my rant:
"Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic 
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.  
                ^^^^^^^^^^
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration."

Most of the groups in contention are irrelevant unless there is
something that shows their readers are actually interested in
a newsgroup.  

>It will not attract those who are active members of
>Cacti_etc.

Why should it?  The main concern is attracting newsgroup readers,
and properly propagating a group that currently isn't properly
set up.

>As I have said many times there is already a well established forum for the
>discussion of Cactus & succulents named Cacti_etc. 

And I've already said that forum is irrelevant here.

>There is no point in
>creating a newsgroup that is not needed. 

If there is enough traffic in newsgroups already (debatable but
not definitely too low), then there IS a need.  If there are
enough newsgroup readers that are interested in discussing the
topic, there IS a need.  That is the only criterion that matters.
The existence of a mailing list or web board does not matter.

>If the reason Bruno (Psycho Cactus)
>wanted to create a newsgroup was because he was unaware it existed, he no
>longer has that excuse. Bruno (Psycho Cactus) is not an active participant
>in the other existing succulent plant forums and groups either. 

He doesn't need to be.

>The same
>especially applies to Brian, who has absolutely no genuine interest in the
>topic.

He doesn't need to be.  It's technical issues of creating a new group
that gets discussed here, and so he is SUPPOSED to talk about the
proposed cactus group.

>Cacti_etc is an easily accessible mailing list and includes caudiciforms
>(fat plants) in the discussion. If you are a genuine Cactophile, you should
>be a subscriber. Its the best way to be up-to-date in what's going on in the
>world of succulent plants and its absolutely free.

Some folks prefer newsgroups over mailing lists, some vice versa.
If you lose readers to the new group, then that means your mailing
list isn't providing enough of what the readers want or need, and
the mailing deserves to suffer.  If the mailing list is unaffected, 
then there's no harm in creating a newsgroup.  If your mailing list 
grows because of pointers to it in newsgroups, there's no harm in 
creating the new group.  No matter what, the readers win.

ru

-- 
My (updated) standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic 
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.  
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.




More information about the Plantbio mailing list