Rob 'BioBit' Harper
harper at csc.fi
Mon Aug 6 12:03:17 EST 1990
In article <1520 at gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, steffen at hawk.bcm.tmc.edu
(David Steffen) writes:
> Questions for those interested in continuing this discussion:
> 1) Do you think that there is too much noise on the bionet bulletin boards,
> or too little content?
For news groups to succeed there has to be three factors working.
1) ACTIVITY: If there is not activity then it is often a question of
out of sight out of mind. The engine has to be
continuously ticking over. You can have can have the
idling speed at whatever you want, but it is not good
if the engine konks out.
2) INVERACTIVITY: It is not all that healthy if a newsgroup is
dominated by a singular personality. The newsgroups
that I enjoy are ones where people are talking to
each other... and interchange of ideas is important.
Sometimes it requires that someone gives a sermon to
clarify "points of network doctrine", but long messages
in a preaching style rarely get any feedback from the
3) CONTENT: Content is what sells a newsgroup. If the content is
good then the punters will read it. The problem often
is that when you write for a general audience in a
popular style the "experts" deride the content for its
lack of depth, and when you write for the experts, the
punter says "what was that that flew over my head...
was it a bird or a plane?"
> 2) Do you consider this discussion of value? Why or why not?
Only in that it gives me a chance to give my three point sermon once
> 3) Is this the appropriate newsgroup in which to hold this discussion? If
> not, which of the bionet newsgroups would be more appropriate?
Definately not... it is entirely inappropriate... but I would rather see a
sermon that hear one anyday.
Rob "headache... it must be Monday" Harper.
More information about the Methods