Victor Sack > wrote:
> snail > wrote:
>> Victor Sack > wrote:
>> > I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
>> > estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
>> > traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian
>> ISTR some discussion, and stats quotage, a couple of months ago,
>> probably in the pre-RFD period.
> *Please* post the evidence!

How about you google aus.net.news yourself ?

>> > reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
>> > been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*
>> I don't have time to google at the moment, but some some references
>> should come up.
> *Post* them, please, or ask someone else with more time on his hands.

I just asked you Anyway I just had a brief look through
and found plenty of discussion, checked a few posts at random,
but didn't find stats. Using keywords like postings, statistics,
and a couple of others.

I'm posting here as a denizen of aus.net.news. I'm vaguely interested
in whether this group gets up or not, as previous attempts over the
years have failed. This time round there seems to be a lot more
folk interested; certainly there's been a lot more folk posting this
time round which is at least indicative that the group might be used.

> Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical
> evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care

There were previous attempts to create groups in 2000 and 2001 I think.
Let's see, how about the old CFV results:

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.n...4deab752abe0de

previous dicussion of older RFDs:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=aus.net.news+gourmand

oooh, forgot about my attempt in 2003 which is referred to in
discussion back in May:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.n...bf0c6d73013ff6

Crikey, I forgot my own proposal, I knew I was having a bad week
but this is silly.

> of the whole problem, as far as I'm concerned. It is one thing if there
> are, say, at least five posts a day on the relevant topics, and quite
> another if there are perhaps only a couple posts per month.

That I agree with you on.

>> > it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.*
>> > one would be perfectly adequate.
>> Now that's just insulting.
> Well, it was meant to be more facetious than insulting, but insulting
> wouldn't be at all out of place, either. The difference between alt.*

*grin* Either way it was a bit of a wank.

> and aus.* (and other ostensibly "serious" hierarchies) is some standards

Well that's one of the differences, another is that alt is a
global hyraky ( ) where as aus.*, uk.* are country based;
or melb.* syd.* which are city based. Another example is film.
There's plenty of good international discussion groups for film
but aus.film is needed simply because of differing release
schedules and a place for locals to hang.

> of new group creation. One of these standards, evidence of the
> viability of the new group, is lacking in this case, making the aus.*
> effectively equivalent to the alt.*

Bullshit. Honest Even if that one standard were lacking, it's
still not even close to reducing aus.* to the standards of alt.*

> I would say that anyone with even a bit of respect to the aus.*
> hierarchy, or at least to what it is supposed to be, ought to vote NO on
> this proposal, if only out of principle. The whole thing is really not
> just about this one proposed newsgroup - one has to take a larger view.

Nope, my main interest these days is in local groups. I choose
not to take a big 8 view. r.f.c seems a big, happy group but
for me the effect on that group seems minor and not especially
relevant. There'll still be some Oz posters there, and there
may well be room for a local group too.

> Is this all only about the instant-gratification, me-generation people
> who demand the new group *now!* because that's what a few of them *want
> now!*, or is the whole aus.* thing perhaps worthy of some more concern?

No now about it, food proposals in aus.* have come up several
times before and failed and may well fail again, or succeed.

> Just asking... in this case *my* concern is mostly rec.food.cooking...

Your concern is fair enough for you; I don't see why "one has to
take a larger view". That's your stance not mine.

> FWIW, another, better, proposal can be made in a few months time, I
> imagine, if this one fails for some reason. It is not as though people
> are prevented from having what they want for the eternity.

Well, it's been about 5 years since it was first proposed and it
still hasn't got up. Maybe folk will have to wait an eternity

>> That doesn't mean newsgroups
>> in aus.* should be created willy nilly, however there has
>> been quite a bit of a discussion on this proposal and seems
>> to have a fair bit of support.

> What discussion? Mine was the only criticism at all, as far as I can
> see - and it was totally ignored.

Go back a couple of months...probably April/May and there's been
a bunch of food related postings in a.n.n in that time too.
--
snail @ smacktard net http://snail.ws/
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Frost.