Collapsing the Namespace

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas
Cole) wrote:

>In article <kiiciu$u5e$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, to...@darkstorm.co.uk wrote:
><snip very interesting comments>
>> I
>> think collapsing the namespace is the only way to maintain conversation,
>> but I'm under no illusion that it would be for the existing users only.
>
>Well, get to it man! Create uk.everything as a starting point and see if
>it takes!

I'm setting follow-up's to uk.net.news.management where this is slightly
more on-topic. I've also crossposted this into unnm, to preserve at least
some context.

I would work in the opposite direction. I've already commented on this
once, picking for example, the radio newsgroups. They show both sides of
the issue quite nicely.

uk.media.radio.archers
Discussion of the BBC radio soap opera "The Archers"
uk.media.radio.bbc-r1
People, Programmes and Related Topics on BBC Radio 1
uk.media.radio.bbc-r2
People and programmes on BBC Radio 2
uk.media.radio.bbc-r3
For discussion of the output of BBC Radio 3
uk.media.radio.bbc-r4
General issues and programmes on BBC Radio Four
uk.media.radio.bbc-r5
Issues and programmes on BBC Radio 5 Live
uk.media.radio.bbc-world-service
Programmes of the BBC World Service
uk.media.radio.hospital
Hospital Radio in United Kingdom
uk.media.radio.misc
UK Radio issues and programming
uk.media.radio.radcliffe
Discussion about Mark Radcliffe's radio show

I said at the time, I have no idea how much traffic is in those groups, and
I'm not proposing anything, merely using them as an example. If we presume
that traffic in R4 and R2 is higher than R1, R3 and R5, for example, but
that there is general cross over, we might propose to collapse them all
into uk.media.radio.bbc. Surely those folk must have some common ground,
and discussion about radio shows you're not interested in will be easy to
filter out, but, critically, there might just be more people talking and
more chance to see something to respond to.

That's the good side. The issue is, Radio 4 listeners associated
themselves with Radio 4 and not Radio 1, and they don't want to lose that
identity.

That's the challenge.

So, it wouldn't be top down, but bottom up (collapse sub-groups into more
general parent groups), but it would need people to accept a change of
identity.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas
Cole) wrote:

>In article <kihvkr$99e$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, to...@darkstorm.co.uk wrote:

>> I love Usenet, but there's nothing in it's future other the (un)graceful
>> decline.
>
>Maybe I'm just an optimist but I see it puttering on for a good, long
>while yet. Those that use it now are likely to continue.

For everything you need to know, in my view, about the health of Usenet,
see this graph.

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/

Decline has slowed in the last year, without a doubt, but decline it does.
That chart suggests somewhere between 2015 and 2016, Usenet will be pretty
empty.

The uk.* hierarchy isn't any better off,

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/uk.html

The big8 rec.* groups virtually are a straight line,

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/rec.html

(crossposted and FU's set)

[RipeCrisbies]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:26:35 +0000, Tony wrote:

> uk.media.radio.archers
> Discussion of the BBC radio soap opera "The Archers"

Has around 100 posts a day, frequently goes off topic but always
interesting. Very civilised. Surviving very well.



--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

[ben.darling]

On 23 Mar 2013 10:44:18 GMT, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> That's depressing. Not so much the volumes as the number of
posters. There
> are what, 40 million people on the Internet in the UK and only 1602
of them
> post to the uk.* hierarchy. And some of those will be sock puppets
of the
> other ones.

At my last count, which was for uk.rec.cycling only, the J-troll was
well over 200 nyms. Given its recent activity and invasion of other
groups (sorry unnm, unnc, unnm`, and ukra - but at least it is not in
urcm so much) this could be significantly higher. A single troll,
enabled by the cossetted pedants in those groups (urcm excepted)
could be 20 percent of the namespace of posters to the uk.* goups.

Moderation is the answer, not defense of the trolls.

> Sad now.

[Judith]

Most odd - the only other person to accuse me of using 200 different names was
Porky Chapman. He had made it up so had no evidence on that occasion either.
Unlike the IP address when the Porker used the name Lou Knee of course.


--
Porky Chapman bragged about the fact that he was taking someone he
had accused of harassing him through the court system.
All of a sudden his court case is off. Was it because Porky was scared of
being cross-examined and having to answer questions under oath?
Or did the CPS sling the case out because of Porky's "evidence"?
Why won't he tell us?

[Paul Cummins]

In article <almarsoft.1360...@news.aioe.org>, m...@privacy.net

(ben.darling) wrote:

> Moderation is the answer, not defense of the trolls.

I agree, if Moderation is of the ULM model. Not the URCM broken and
failing style.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Paul Cummins]

In article <5qnrk8dpiji7s3jl2...@4ax.com>,
not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk (Anthony R. Gold) wrote:

>
> Broken and failing merely shows which side of controversial you
> occupy.

I personally like the free-for-all of unmoderated groups. I am only
active in one moderated group in total, and my activity therein has
reduced significantly over the last 2 years.

[Clive George]

On 23/03/2013 16:41, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <almarsoft.1360...@news.aioe.org>, m...@privacy.net
> (ben.darling) wrote:
>
>> Moderation is the answer, not defense of the trolls.
>
> I agree, if Moderation is of the ULM model. Not the URCM broken and
> failing style.

One could argue that URCM has generated a lot of interesting traffic
outside it, and thus postponed the general decline at least a bit.

[A.Lee]

Or, it could cause the opposite effect, wherein people are sick of the
ridiculous moaning and arguing about anything, however trivial, and just
don't bother replying to threads that they know a lot about, which could
be a good contribution, but why bother, when such intransigence is
encountered?

The cycling groups are virtually dead to anyone with an interest in
cycling, anyone with a clue has gone to one of the well-used web forums
on the subject, the trolls have won there, I can see other groups going
that way too.

There are 3, quite popular, groups I inhabit, but my contributions are
getting fewer by the week, as when I post something that I do actually
know something about, an idiot comes along and tells me I'm wrong.

uk.railway is currently experiencing 2 idiots, along with the resident
'nit-picker', making it almost not worth bothering about.
uk.diy is going that way with single issue posters, uk.comp.sys.mac is
full of arguments.
Usenet is dying, only a few outposts are healthy - ULM is one.

Alan

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <almarsoft.1360...@news.aioe.org>, ben.darling wrote:
>On 23 Mar 2013 10:44:18 GMT, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> That's depressing. Not so much the volumes as the number of
>posters. There
>> are what, 40 million people on the Internet in the UK and only 1602
>of them
>> post to the uk.* hierarchy. And some of those will be sock puppets
>of the
>> other ones.
>
>At my last count, which was for uk.rec.cycling only, the J-troll was
>well over 200 nyms. Given its recent activity and invasion of other
>groups (sorry unnm, unnc, unnm`, and ukra - but at least it is not in
>urcm so much)

I believe by her own figures she's well over 40% of the posters in urcm.
But (i) I haven't checked the figures, so she's likely lying again and
(ii) it's far far lower by volume, since only posts that comply with the
charter get through.

On the other hand huge numbers of her urc nyms were only used for one or
two posts (and the "don't feed the troll" followups might not even have
been her), so won't contribute to later years' poster numbers.

[Judith]

On 24 Mar 2013 11:07:47 +0000 (GMT), ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

<snip>

>I believe by her own figures she's well over 40% of the posters in urcm.

What on earth are you rabbiting on about now Baggins

Why not now back up your claim so that people can see that you are not just the
liar that you have always been.

I post successfully to URCM on a regular basis - but no-where near 40% - and I
have never claimed so.

[John Hall]

In article <PJqdnYpWVdAG5dPM...@brightview.co.uk>,

Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>One could argue that URCM has generated a lot of interesting
>traffic outside it, and thus postponed the general decline at least a
>bit.

One could also argue that urcm has generated a lot of repetitive,
abusive and very boring traffic outside it. I now skip over any thread
with "urcm" or "cycling" in its subject line.
--
John Hall
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist

[g...@chapmancentral.co.uk]

On Saturday, 23 March 2013 15:47:34 UTC, Judith wrote:
> Most odd - the only other person to accuse me of using 200 different names was
> Porky Chapman. He had made it up so had no evidence on that occasion either.

You wish. I posted the list of identities, many of which were either self-admitted or made no attempt to hide the fact they were sockpuppets.

But maybe it was only 150, not 200 - it makes no odds. The simple fact is that you are a prolific sockpuppeteer (by common consent and actually your own admission) and pretty much everyone you have hypocritically accused of being one, is not.