Hello!

What do you think about deleting groups in Big8 that aren't being used
for years for normal postings?

That happened in the German de.* hierarchy, I think it will be a good
idea to clean it up. Unused groups are especially nasty for new users
who want to look for groups with traffic.

What do you think about it?

--
kind regards
Marco

Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:

>Hello!

>What do you think about deleting groups in Big8 that aren't being used
>for years for normal postings?

>That happened in the German de.* hierarchy, I think it will be a good
>idea to clean it up. Unused groups are especially nasty for new users
>who want to look for groups with traffic.

>What do you think about it?

Former members of the B8MB suggested that from time to time. It's
useless busy work that does nothing whatsoever to save Usenet. alt.* and
other hierarchies are filled with unused newsgroups. It does nothing to
prevent posting in groups that are still used.

Please don't go there.

Marco Moock wrote:

> What do you think about deleting groups in Big8 that aren't being used
> for years for normal postings?

Someone went on a bit of a crusade a few years ago killing-off unused
groups within uk.*

I don't believe it made a blind bit of difference ...

Hi Adam and Marco,

>> What do you think about deleting groups in Big8 that aren't being used
>> for years for normal postings?
>>
>> That happened in the German de.* hierarchy, I think it will be a good
>> idea to clean it up.

Work is also in progress in the French-speaking fr.* hierarchy.

>> Unused groups are especially nasty for new users
>> who want to look for groups with traffic.

That's also the main reason why we started that rationalization and
simplification for fr.* as the list of more than 300 newsgroups (which
made sense two decades ago) is too large nowadays.
Fewer newsgroups will permit more easily finding the appropriate
newsgroup to post articles to, and prevent people from wasting time in
posting an article for which they will never get any response.

> Former members of the B8MB suggested that from time to time. It's
> useless busy work that does nothing whatsoever to save Usenet.

The point of that work is not to save Usenet but to try to simplify the
list of newsgroups and adapt it with the current usage.
Instead of freezing the topics to the ones from the last century, we
just make the hierarchy a bit alive (cleaning it up a bit, and creating
a few newsgroups when appropriate). Just moving, and not totally
freezing it.

> alt.* and other hierarchies are filled with unused newsgroups.
Indeed, the list of the alt.* groups is impressive... I bet only a part
of them are carried by well-administered news servers (the groups with
traffic, or explicitly asked by their users).

Anyway, it is up to each hierarchy (like de.*, uk.*, fr.*, the Big-8...)
to manage their list according to the policy they wish.
There's no obligation for any of them.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Life is short… so eat dessert first! »

=?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?= <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:
>That's also the main reason why we started that rationalization and
>simplification for fr.* as the list of more than 300 newsgroups (which
>made sense two decades ago) is too large nowadays.

Yes, I just read it in "fr.lettres.langue.allemande". It seems
there is no "fr.lettres.langue.misc" that could accept all
messages about any language with no dedicated newsgroup.

I also think that some hierarchies are too deep. "fr.langue.misc"
would suffice instead of "fr.lettres.langue.misc". But it's
better to leave it the way it is now than to reorganize too much!

>Fewer newsgroups will permit more easily finding the appropriate
>newsgroup to post articles to, and prevent people from wasting time in
>posting an article for which they will never get any response.

Any change that occurs now only invalidates the knowledge of those
who know the Usenet now. It could be a relief for hypothetical new
participants, but they simply do not exist. So any change will only
produce useless conversion effort and mental adjustment effort for
current users. Conversions could also result in older posts from
the disbanded groups becoming inaccessible in some archives.

Julien <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>Adam wrote:

>>. . .

>>alt.* and other hierarchies are filled with unused newsgroups.

>Indeed, the list of the alt.* groups is impressive... I bet only a part
>of them are carried by well-administered news servers (the groups with
>traffic, or explicitly asked by their users).

During proposal review in alt.config, when there had been proponents,
they were told and told repeatedly that newgroup messages do not create
newsgroups, that News administrators create newsgroups. The decision is
made one News site at a time. Typically, an alt.* group gets created if
a user requests it, and won't be created lacking a user request.

>Anyway, it is up to each hierarchy (like de.*, uk.*, fr.*, the Big-8...)
>to manage their list according to the policy they wish.
>There's no obligation for any of them.

I will continue to point out that it's pointless busywork. Julien, I do
not agree with you that any good purpose is served by "simplifying" the
checkgroups, nor would the user benefit. There's always the possibility
that someone could try to revive an old newsgroup by, shockingly,
posting on topic, and that somebody else could see the article and post
a followup, also on topic.

Time and time again, we remind News administrators that if a seemingly
unused newsgroup is removed from a News site, then any posting history
and unexpired articles are removed as well. Sometimes users do look for
information in very old articles.

The only thing that's important is The Usual Advice, which has been
given since Usenet was new. Usenet benefits from users posting on topic.
The only thing that will save Usenet is regular users choosing to post
on topic in groups created to discuss topics they are interested in. One
never knows if a newsgroup can be revived until someone tries, by
posting an article on topic that someone else might post an on topic
followup to.

Nothing else is important. Removing groups or delisting groups from
checkgroups is irrelevant to saving Usenet.

Hi Stefan,

> Yes, I just read it in "fr.lettres.langue.allemande". It seems
> there is no "fr.lettres.langue.misc" that could accept all
> messages about any language with no dedicated newsgroup.

It would be fr.lettres.langue.divers instead of .misc to follow the
usual naming in fr.* (like fr.comp.divers, fr.rec.jeux.divers, etc.) but
yes I understand the idea.
I am unsure this newsgroup will be created as it may well appear unused
and empty too... Anyway, you are free to propose that creation in
response to the discussion initiated in fr.lettres.langue.allemande.

> I also think that some hierarchies are too deep. "fr.langue.misc"
> would suffice instead of "fr.lettres.langue.misc". But it's
> better to leave it the way it is now than to reorganize too much!

At this time, it is too late to do a great renaming of the
subhierarchies. We recently had that discussion for
fr.comp.infosystemes.www.* newgroups. We don't want to kill the
newsgroups that are still in use (Google Groups no longer creates
newsgroups, and some other news server also don't; though the majority
of the servers used by posters in fr.* follow the changes).

> Any change that occurs now only invalidates the knowledge of those
> who know the Usenet now. It could be a relief for hypothetical new
> participants, but they simply do not exist.

We sometimes have new participants, rarely, but it happens. We welcomed
one in the French BSD newsgroup a few months ago.

> So any change will only
> produce useless conversion effort and mental adjustment effort for
> current users. Conversions could also result in older posts from
> the disbanded groups becoming inaccessible in some archives.

Sure. Hopefully most archiving servers do not honour removals but only
additions.

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Vinum bonum laetificat cor hominis. »

Hi Adam,

>> Anyway, it is up to each hierarchy (like de.*, uk.*, fr.*, the Big-8...)
>> to manage their list according to the policy they wish.
>> There's no obligation for any of them.
>
> I will continue to point out that it's pointless busywork. Julien, I do
> not agree with you that any good purpose is served by "simplifying" the
> checkgroups, nor would the user benefit. There's always the possibility
> that someone could try to revive an old newsgroup by, shockingly,
> posting on topic, and that somebody else could see the article and post
> a followup, also on topic.

Sure. This was discussed in fr.* and there were more people in favour
of a simplification than a freeze.
In case a discussion between 2 or 3 people is noticed on an old
newsgroup still present on some servers, its official re-addition in the
official checkgroups will naturally be examined.

What currently happens in fr.* is that instead of discussing every 3
months the removal of 1 dead newsgroup, and actually removing it after a
period of discussion reaching a consensus, we engaged a general
systematic review (more efficient in energy and time). So the
"cleaning" work of fr.* was already being done before that general review.
rmgroup history also shows that fr.* groups were removed in 2004, 2005,
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and then the PGP key was
lost, and recreated in late 2020. The removals went on in 2021, 2022
and now 2023.
There are a few creations from time to time (but to my knowledge no
re-creation yet).

So the cleaning process has always been in the genes of fr.*, and nobody
has ever really complained or suffer from dramatic loss... Why would it
happen now? :-)

> Time and time again, we remind News administrators that if a seemingly
> unused newsgroup is removed from a News site, then any posting history
> and unexpired articles are removed as well. Sometimes users do look for
> information in very old articles.
> > The only thing that's important is The Usual Advice, which has been
> given since Usenet was new. Usenet benefits from users posting on topic.
> The only thing that will save Usenet is regular users choosing to post
> on topic in groups created to discuss topics they are interested in. One
> never knows if a newsgroup can be revived until someone tries, by
> posting an article on topic that someone else might post an on topic
> followup to.
>
> Nothing else is important. Removing groups or delisting groups from
> checkgroups is irrelevant to saving Usenet.

I understand your point, we once had a discussion in
news.admin.hierarchies about that.
You should participate in the discussions in fr.* :-)

--
Julien ÉLIE

« Omnia uincit Amor et nos cedamus Amori. » (Virgile)

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> I will continue to point out that it's pointless busywork. Julien, I do
> not agree with you that any good purpose is served by "simplifying" the
> checkgroups, nor would the user benefit.

Some say so, others differently; I share Julien's view.

> There's always the possibility
> that someone could try to revive an old newsgroup by, shockingly,
> posting on topic, and that somebody else could see the article and post
> a followup, also on topic.

Sure. There is also the theoretical possibility that once the WWW has
outlived its usefulness, Facebook will be replaced by a Usenet hierarchy.
Realistically, neither is the case.

> Time and time again, we remind News administrators that if a seemingly
> unused newsgroup is removed from a News site, then any posting history
> and unexpired articles are removed as well. Sometimes users do look for
> information in very old articles.

Most news servers expire old postings after some month or a year or two.
Nobody will look for an article posted five, ten or fifteen years earlier
on a news server; they'll use their local spool, a local archive or a web
archive for that. (And if someone would search postings from 2010 or 2005,
the server won't have them, or they'll be buriend under mountains of spam
and other noise.)

-thh

Thomas Hochstein <thh@thh.name> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>. . .

>Sure. There is also the theoretical possibility that once the WWW has
>outlived its usefulness, Facebook will be replaced by a Usenet hierarchy.
>Realistically, neither is the case.

Thanks, Thomas. There's also the possibility that you might make a
counter-argument with other than an irrelevant analogy to something I've
said that you disagree with, in lieu of over-the-top scenery chewing.
It's far more likely that I would win a large lottery prize.

>>Time and time again, we remind News administrators that if a seemingly
>>unused newsgroup is removed from a News site, then any posting history
>>and unexpired articles are removed as well. Sometimes users do look for
>>information in very old articles.

>Most news servers expire old postings after some month or a year or two.

You absolutely don't know what you are talking about. Disk storage is
larger, text Usenet is smaller. Years of retention of text articles is
quite feasible these days.

>Nobody will look for an article posted five, ten or fifteen years earlier
>on a news server; they'll use their local spool, a local archive or a web
>archive for that.

It's ridiculous to make an absolute statement like that.

>(And if someone would search postings from 2010 or 2005, the server won't
>have them, or they'll be buriend under mountains of spam and other noise.)

Some of us use well-administered servers that long used spam countermeasures.
That you don't is, well, not a choice I agree with. You do you, Thomas.