 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
Ausadmin > wrote:
[snippage throughout] 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 perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the 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.* hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ as no longer relevant? A reminder: Creation of new newsgroups does not happen in a vacuum - other newsgroups may well be affected, rec.food.cooking in this particular case. There is little doubt that some valuable traffic may be potentially diverted from rfc, thus damaging it, if only very slightly. This, in itself, is a good enough reason to oppose the creation of any such new newsgroup and the only reason to the contrary that is still better is statistical evidence of enough interest in recent years in the proposed topic to sustain the new newsgroup. Some people may ask why such an evidence is important if there is to be a vote which will show actual interest in the new group. The answer is of course that the vote shows only the current interest, a moment's snapshot, which may be influenced by many irrelevant factors. The statistical evidence of long-term interest supplements the current one. Come to think of it, why go through the motions of holding a vote at all, then? Just create the bloody newsgroup and if people want to use it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.* one would be perfectly adequate. > Other newsgroups that discuss food are completly oriented towards > every other country except Australia. This part of the rationale is not just misleading - it is untrue. rec.food.cooking is a global newsgroup and is oriented towards any country that happens to be discussed at any one point. This has been pointed to the proponent early in the course of the RFD discussion. Nothing happened, of course. Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
[aus.net.news removed]
Victor Sack > wrote in message . .. [snip] > 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, [snip] Which is enough reason to vote no for this proposal. When someone votes no, then the yes votes require an even greater number of yes votes. This can be very tough on a 'group with a finite following. If the vote doesn't meet (and I'm blanking on the actual percentage but it's huge) the hierarchy's requirement, the proposed 'group doesn't get the necessary permissions. But... People have to vote. (Even abstaining is a strike against the formation of a new 'group.) The Ranger |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
[posting from aus.net.news]
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. > 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. > particular case. There is little doubt that some valuable traffic may > be potentially diverted from rfc, thus damaging it, if only very > slightly. This, in itself, is a good enough reason to oppose the If it's "very slightly" then it doesn't sound like that big an issue. Though that remains a valid point. > 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. I've been active in both regional and international newsgroups over the years though little of either these days. Sometimes both on the same topic, simply because of the different flavour of a local group vs an international perspective. I used to hang out in news.groups several years ago and aus.net.news for many years, and a.n.n is much, more relaxed than n.g but then the number of posts is orders of magnitude lower. 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. -- snail @ smacktard net http://snail.ws/ A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Frost. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! > > 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. Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care 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. > > 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.* and aus.* (and other ostensibly "serious" hierarchies) is some standards 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.* 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. 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? Just asking... in this case *my* concern is mostly rec.food.cooking... 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. > 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. Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 throughand 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'sstill 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for
aus.net.news: }snail > wrote: <snip> }Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical }evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care }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. And another thing again if there are a couple of hundred posts per month, of which only five are ostensibly on topic. Would that be a successful group, in your opinion? (That's a serious question, by the way- I'm genuinely interested in your view). Estimated traffic is important to a proposed group (though perhaps not, to my mind, as important as the heavily Big 8-influenced FAQ makes it out to be). However, it's open to aus.admin to accept a RFD without this information, and to allow it to proceed to a CFV (as has happened)- at this point, the vote will determine the outcome, and (should it pass) history will determine the validity. Your argument, whilst relevant and not answered (to my knowledge, anyway) during the RFD phase, has been overtaken by events. }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.* }and aus.* (and other ostensibly "serious" hierarchies) is some standards }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.* I freely admit I don't have an analysis here (and any such would have to wait until the weekend at the earliest), but I *suspect* the aus.* hierarchy has a respectable percentage of active groups relative to some of the Big 8- notably rec.* (counting traffic as the sole indication of activity), even allowing for the shorter period of existence. That suggests to me that while the creation process may be flawed, it does produce the result it was designed for. }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. }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? }Just asking... in this case *my* concern is mostly rec.food.cooking... Would it damage the aus.* hierarchy more than, say, aus.tv.reality? To attract a "no" vote from me, I'd have to be satisfied that the answer was that it would- since the process for creating a group in this hierarchy has been largely followed, I'm not convinced there's a procedural justification for a no vote. }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. You may not be aware that this is the second proposal for aus.food to be presented. The first was on the order of three years ago, IIRC. }> 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. I've also expressed some concerns (largely in aus.net.news), but it's ... impolite at best to discuss the merits of a proposal during the CFV, so I leave it to those keen enough to look for them. I fear I've discussed it too much in this post already. I don't think I have a dog in this fight, as our American cousins may say, but I am somewhat curious about the result of the vote. -- Brett "I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brett Mount > wrote:
> And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for > aus.net.news: > > }Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical > }evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care > }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. > > And another thing again if there are a couple of hundred posts per month, > of which only five are ostensibly on topic. This would only be relevant in an already existing newsgroup. > Would that be a successful > group, in your opinion? (That's a serious question, by the way- I'm > genuinely interested in your view). I don't know if I want to generalise like that. I can, however, point to the many of the soc.culture.* newsgroups that are exactly like your description. I would say they are dead, for all practical purposes. On the other hand, maybe you mean some existing newsgroup where all of those off-topic posts are on the subject of Australian food. ;-) > Estimated traffic is important to a proposed group (though perhaps not, to > my mind, as important as the heavily Big 8-influenced FAQ makes it out to > be). However, it's open to aus.admin to accept a RFD without this > information, and to allow it to proceed to a CFV (as has happened)- at > this point, the vote will determine the outcome, and (should it pass) > history will determine the validity. Your argument, whilst relevant and > not answered (to my knowledge, anyway) during the RFD phase, has been > overtaken by events. Not at all. The discussion goes on and can change people opinions and votes. For example, I have not voted yet and, if some honest stats that show the groups viability are posted, I shall abstain or vote YES. It is not as though these stats must be included in the charter or even the rationale. They may just be a part of the dicussion. BTW, something that Nick once posted about multiple voting attempts made me think that only the first vote is counted and the others ignored. If this is indeed so, it is rather unfortunate. In my opinion, only the last vote should be counted in such a case, not the first one. This is how it is done in the Big-8 hierarchies, FWIW. People do sometimes change their opinion in the course of a discussion. > I freely admit I don't have an analysis here (and any such would have to > wait until the weekend at the earliest), but I *suspect* the aus.* > hierarchy has a respectable percentage of active groups relative to some > of the Big 8- notably rec.* (counting traffic as the sole indication of > activity), even allowing for the shorter period of existence. > > That suggests to me that while the creation process may be flawed, it does > produce the result it was designed for. Has the process always been flawed, as you put it, at least as far as not presenting an estimate of future traffic on the newsgroup is concerned? Or is this a recent development? > Would it damage the aus.* hierarchy more than, say, aus.tv.reality? To > attract a "no" vote from me, I'd have to be satisfied that the answer was > that it would- since the process for creating a group in this hierarchy > has been largely followed, I'm not convinced there's a procedural > justification for a no vote. The form has been followed, for nowhere there is a requirement to present any statistical evidence. The spirit was ignored, though, for the form without substance is, of course, empty and pointless. The damage will be done if future proposals are treated this way also. It is, in my opinion, a seriously flawed proposal - gimme a better one, NOW! :-) I think aus.* deserves better. I therefore reluctantly call upon those who are still reading this thread and agree with my reasoning to vote NO and hope for a better proposal a few months from now. Please look up the CFV at <http://groups.google.com/group/aus.net.news/msg/cec6752ce58417b6> and follow the instructions. Make sure your address is unmunged. (I don't think my call will make any difference at all - people are just not really interested in the subject, at least on rec.food.cooking, and I'm not about to start campaigning. So, it is just a matter of principle...) > I've also expressed some concerns (largely in aus.net.news), but it's ... > impolite at best to discuss the merits of a proposal during the CFV, Why, pray tell? I'm truly puzzled. As long as there is an opportunity to vote, discussion should be allowed to go on. Or is this a peculiar aus.* custom? Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Victor Sack) writes:
>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 >perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the >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.* >hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ >as no longer relevant? No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are in the voting phase now. The proposal now stands or falls on its own merit, inadequate or not. Nick. -- http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/ I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nick Andrew wrote: > (Victor Sack) writes: > > >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 > >perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the > >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.* > >hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ > >as no longer relevant? > > No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are > in the voting phase now. The proposal now stands or falls on its own > merit, inadequate or not. > > Nick. > -- > http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/ > I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply. This would appear to support Victor's and the Ranger's points and suggest to non-Ozzian RFC members that if they wish to keep reading postings related to OZ in the same forum as they read postings related to most other cookings rather than in some inadequately described and discussed forum it is in their interest to vote AGAINST the creation of this group. -bwg |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nick Andrew > wrote:
> (Victor Sack) writes: > > >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 > >perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the > >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.* > >hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ > >as no longer relevant? > > No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are > in the voting phase now. Eh, I posted what was effectively the very same thing, more than once even, even quoting parts of the aus.* FAQ, *during the RFD discussion* - and nothing happened. > The proposal now stands or falls on its own > merit, inadequate or not. That is obvious enough about *now*. What about *before*? Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Victor Sack wrote: > Nick Andrew > wrote: > > > (Victor Sack) writes: > > > > >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 > > >perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the > > >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.* > > >hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ > > >as no longer relevant? > > > > No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are > > in the voting phase now. > > Eh, I posted what was effectively the very same thing, more than once > even, even quoting parts of the aus.* FAQ, *during the RFD discussion* - > and nothing happened. My god man get a LIFE. Wah Wah nothing happened. It's a simple call for votes for a new aus newsgroup. You don't like it? reply no! Simple really. I think you've made your points many, many times. I couldn't have cared less personally speaking, but seeing your attitude I think I will vote. Yes for me! > > The proposal now stands or falls on its own > > merit, inadequate or not. > > That is obvious enough about *now*. What about *before*? Move on, nothing more to see here. Doc |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote:
> My god man get a LIFE. Wah Wah nothing happened. It's a simple call for > votes for a new aus newsgroup. You don't like it? reply no! Simple > really. I think you've made your points many, many times. My, such an original post (especially the "LIFE" part, complete with capitalising)! You ought to acquire a WebTV... it'll suit you perfectly. In case you missed it - and of course you did - I was asking whether the aus.* FAQ is still relevant or should be pulled as no longer needed. Has a lot to do with all the future aus.* proposals. Flew right over your head, obviously. >I couldn't > have cared less personally speaking, but seeing your attitude I think I > will vote. Yes for me! It is unethical to vote "YES" for a group one couldn't care less about. What an unprincipled decision! Victor |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
G'day Vic,
I'm afraid this response is coming a bit late in the day -- but I did *start* it nearly a week ago. (Things always intervene. 8-) In article >, (Victor Sack) wrote: >Ausadmin > wrote: > >[snippage throughout] > >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 >perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the >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.* >hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ >as no longer relevant? > >A reminder: Creation of new newsgroups does not happen in a vacuum - >other newsgroups may well be affected, rec.food.cooking in this >particular case. There is little doubt that some valuable traffic may >be potentially diverted from rfc, thus damaging it, if only very >slightly. This, in itself, is a good enough reason to oppose the >creation of any such new newsgroup and the only reason to the contrary >that is still better is statistical evidence of enough interest in >recent years in the proposed topic to sustain the new newsgroup. I thought that one *objection* could be that contributions to a new Australian group may mostly be cross-posted to r.f.c anyway, and that would be seen by some as counter-productive. But if the concern is traffic lost to r.f.c then I'm sure we can arrange a cross-posting default so denizens of r.f.c don't miss out on Aussie wisdom, and contributors to the proposed new group don't get flooded out by irrelevant material. :-) [See Notes below.] >Some people may ask why such an evidence is important if there is to be >a vote which will show actual interest in the new group. The answer is >of course that the vote shows only the current interest, a moment's >snapshot, which may be influenced by many irrelevant factors. The >statistical evidence of long-term interest supplements the current one. > >Come to think of it, why go through the motions of holding a vote at >all, then? Just create the bloody newsgroup and if people want to use >it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.* >one would be perfectly adequate. Well if alt.* is regarded as a solution for the establishment of a new group, then the argument about traffic diversion from r.f.c is stillborn. ;-) However, I would regard the alt.* solution as totally unacceptable. Many corporate and government sites simply ban access to alt.*, which would cut off many legitimate uses by staff of such organisations (as well as their lunch time contributions .>> Other newsgroups that discuss food are completly oriented towards >> every other country except Australia. > >This part of the rationale is not just misleading - it is untrue. >rec.food.cooking is a global newsgroup and is oriented towards any >country that happens to be discussed at any one point. This has been >pointed to the proponent early in the course of the RFD discussion. >Nothing happened, of course. While true in theory, it doesn't work like that in practice. Not only is there a huge amount of totally irrelevant traffic in r.f.c, my observation is that if you're not part of the established clique you tend to be ignored. (And I hasten to add that you are in fact one of the not very many who *do* respond to "outsiders"; and I thank you for your interest in some of the queries I have raised, for example.) Notes: (1) My involvement in USENET over the past 15 years or so has been mostly in the more technical groups related to computers, botany, meteorology, and similar; so I am not used to the homely, chatty, and (to my mind at present) rather cliquey ambience of r.f.c where an inordinate amount of bandwidth (again to my mind as a result of previous experience) is devoted to things like "birthday wishes" and similar "OT" threads. Perhaps such things are pretty normal in the more "social" groups and, if so, I need to work on my prejudices. (2) Understandably, there is a *huge* bias to things American in r.f.c, and that can hardly be avoided when you consider that USENET originated in the USA with "The Internet" decades ago and by the time most of the rest of the world had general access to the technology the World Wide Web had largely overtaken the old text-based discussion forums. Nonetheless, it can be a bit irritating to others to be confronted in a cooking newsgroup with so much emphasis on US domestic issues not in the least related to cooking! For the latest example, look no further than the "FEMA" theme which has been running in r.f.c this week. Because of your interest in statistics, I have collected some. ;-) For the six days 12 to 17 Sep 2005 inclusive (Australian EST) the main "FEMA" thread in r.f.c has accounted for the following proportions of daily articles in r.f.c as seen on this server: 90/411, 81/389, 74/304, 80/409, 106/350, and 79/303 respectively. I'm happy to say that reading online as I do with my ancient newsreader, this is not a huge issue for me because I can simply skip all the crud; but if I was one of the many downloading newsgroups to read them offline, I would be pretty ****ed off with that amount of noise in this group. (3) Elsewhere it was suggested that traffic in the proposed aus.food group may be around 2.5 articles/day (IIRC), based on recent stats in related groups. This motivated me to do a quick google for me in r.f.c which seems to indicate I have been responsible for jamming communications around the world to the extent of over 250 messages here in the past 13 months, or about 0.67 articles/day. So all we need is someone to reply to me each time and we're half way to that 2.5/day, and that's just two of us. ;-) Cheers, Phred. -- LID |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Phred" > wrote > While true in theory, it doesn't work like that in practice. Not only > is there a huge amount of totally irrelevant traffic in r.f.c, my > observation is that if you're not part of the established clique you > tend to be ignored. (And I hasten to add that you are in fact one of > the not very many who *do* respond to "outsiders"; and I thank you > for your interest in some of the queries I have raised, for example.) It's funny to me, because I always see people here trying to help out 'newcomers' ... I do see where people 'know' each other and of course they seem more familiar, but if someone new comes in and asks a question or whatever, they usually get a response. Of course, if the first post is WHAT IS THIS I THOUGHT THIS WAS A COOKING NEWSGROUP!!! the response might not be what they were looking for (laugh). I don't really see a clique. Perhaps it's the old forest/trees thing. nancy |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Phred > wrote:
> (Victor Sack) wrote: > I thought that one *objection* could be that contributions to a new > Australian group may mostly be cross-posted to r.f.c anyway, and that > would be seen by some as counter-productive. But if the concern is > traffic lost to r.f.c then I'm sure we can arrange a cross-posting > default so denizens of r.f.c don't miss out on Aussie wisdom, and > contributors to the proposed new group don't get flooded out by > irrelevant material. :-) [See Notes below.] Ah, but the crossposting itself would likely generate at least some of that irrelevant material. As the thread progresses, even on-topic posts may become irrelevant to one of the newsgroups if, for example, they start mentioning local ingredients and such. Not to speak of a topic drift into total irrelevancy. > Well if alt.* is regarded as a solution for the establishment of a > new group, then the argument about traffic diversion from r.f.c is > stillborn. ;-) > > However, I would regard the alt.* solution as totally unacceptable. > Many corporate and government sites simply ban access to alt.*, which > would cut off many legitimate uses by staff of such organisations (as > well as their lunch time contributions .Yes, that was my point, in part. Even public ISPs often enough don't carry alt.*, preferring "serius" hierarchies with "seriously" created newsgroups. > >This part of the rationale is not just misleading - it is untrue. > >rec.food.cooking is a global newsgroup and is oriented towards any > >country that happens to be discussed at any one point. This has been > >pointed to the proponent early in the course of the RFD discussion. > >Nothing happened, of course. > > While true in theory, it doesn't work like that in practice. Not only > is there a huge amount of totally irrelevant traffic in r.f.c, my > observation is that if you're not part of the established clique you > tend to be ignored. There is more than just a bit of truth in what you say, though I would still say you are exaggerating somewhat. I've posted a fair bit on the subject. See, for example, <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/cce434246056011e> and <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/5bade737c013e8ca>. Still, how being an Australian (or insert any other nationality if necessary) excludes one from being "accepted"? And, how can one be sure the same thing won't happen in aus.food? BTW, since you were talking about the rfc FAQ in another thread, I wonder if you know that it had been originally compiled by an American living in Norway, then almost at once taken over by a New Zealander, who maintained it for seven years. Then a tandem of an American and a German took over. Now it is the German only. And another "BTW"... A few years ago, the rfc Cook.Book was produced. Here is an excerpt from an introduction: _______________________ The volunteers named above live in Australia, France, Germany, Okinawa, and the United States of America. They, along with the many contributors of the recipes here, are witness to the international participation that made the Cook.Book dream a reality. Who said we can't get along with each other? _______________________ > Notes: > > (1) My involvement in USENET over the past 15 years or so has been > mostly in the more technical groups related to computers, botany, > meteorology, and similar; so I am not used to the homely, chatty, and > (to my mind at present) rather cliquey ambience of r.f.c where an > inordinate amount of bandwidth (again to my mind as a result of > previous experience) is devoted to things like "birthday wishes" and > similar "OT" threads. Perhaps such things are pretty normal in the > more "social" groups and, if so, I need to work on my prejudices. No, you are quite correct in your assesment, though indeed such rec.* newsgroups almost inevitably become more of a "community", with people getting closer together, often enough even in the physical sense, organising cook-ins and otherwise meeting in "real life". I've posted on this, too :-) See, for example, <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/msg/a35aefd21f1e494d>. How can one be sure the same thing won't happen in aus.food? > (2) Understandably, there is a *huge* bias to things American in > r.f.c, and that can hardly be avoided when you consider that USENET > originated in the USA with "The Internet" decades ago and by the time > most of the rest of the world had general access to the technology the > World Wide Web had largely overtaken the old text-based discussion > forums. Nonetheless, it can be a bit irritating to others to be > confronted in a cooking newsgroup with so much emphasis on US domestic > issues not in the least related to cooking! For the latest example, > look no further than the "FEMA" theme which has been running in r.f.c > this week. Because of your interest in statistics, I have collected > some. ;-) For the six days 12 to 17 Sep 2005 inclusive (Australian > EST) the main "FEMA" thread in r.f.c has accounted for the following > proportions of daily articles in r.f.c as seen on this server: 90/411, > 81/389, 74/304, 80/409, 106/350, and 79/303 respectively. Yes, but that is just Usenet vandalism. What if aus.food starts getting similar crossposts from, say, aus.politics or aus.religion? > I'm happy > to say that reading online as I do with my ancient newsreader, this is > not a huge issue for me because I can simply skip all the crud; but if > I was one of the many downloading newsgroups to read them offline, I > would be pretty ****ed off with that amount of noise in this group. I use an offline newsreader - it is no different from an online one in this respect. I download only the headers and then select, using filtering or not, whatever I want to read. > (3) Elsewhere it was suggested that traffic in the proposed aus.food > group may be around 2.5 articles/day (IIRC), based on recent stats in > related groups. This motivated me to do a quick google for me in > r.f.c which seems to indicate I have been responsible for jamming > communications around the world to the extent of over 250 messages > here in the past 13 months, or about 0.67 articles/day. So all we > need is someone to reply to me each time and we're half way to that > 2.5/day, and that's just two of us. ;-) I'll do my best! ;-) Victor |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Call For Votes (CFV): aus.food | Wine | |||
| aus.food: some background and a call for support .... | General Cooking | |||
| Last Call for research Survey on Food and Health | General Cooking | |||
| Last Call for research Survey on Food and Health | Baking | |||
| Last Call for research Survey on Food and Health | Restaurants | |||
Hybrid Mode
