Re: Miscellaneous

On 22/10/2024 16:14, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:47:15 -0000 (UTC), Samuel Söderberg
<samuel@samuelsoderberg.se> wrote:
 

On 22 Oct 2024 at 12:20:38 CEST, "Xocyll" <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
>

This is the group that stayed active, and the others just folded in for
the most part.

>
Were the user bases that segregated?

 For a time, it made sense. In the early 90s, Usenet was quite the
hopping place, and comp.sys.ibm.pc.games (no .action, .misc,
.adventure, etc.) was seeing hundreds of new posts per day. It was
decided to subdivided it into the various sub-groups and arguably that
was the correct decision. Usenet just kept growing and it made it
easier to keep track of conversations with threads about "Doom" in one
newsgroup, threads about "Kings Quest" in another, and "Falcon 3.0" in
a third. Although even in the 90s, there was some difficulty in
figuring out which game went to which newsgroups. So most people just
subscribed to all the groups (and cross-posted incessantly ;-)
 But after ~2000, Usenet usage dropped precipitously as ISPs stopped
offering free NNTP service. The c.s.i.p.g.* groups still carried on,
but there just wasn't really enough activity to fill up ten
newsgroups. So the lingering users congregated on the one newsgroup
that saw the most activity --c.s.i.p.g.action-- just because that was
the one place they'd most likely get a response to their posts.
  

Why would we move from an active group to a dead group?

>
From the looks of it, we will not.
>
I would still hope for a better fit for the content, but alas.

 I think most people would agree that _technically_ it might make more
sense. After all, people might easily assume that the only thing
discussed in c.s.i.p.g.action are action games; that discussions about
adventure titles, or strategy or flight-sims aren't welcome.
C.s.i.p.g.Misc is arguably a more encompassing, generic location.
 But logistically? It doesn't really make sense. Just getting people to
change newsgroups is harder than herding cats, and c.s.i.p.g.misc just
doesn't have as large an archive of older messages. Newcomers might
look at the two newsgroups, see that .action has 600,000 posts in it,
.misc has 2000, and assume .action is the more active group... even if
all the new posts were being made elsewhere.
 Plus, I (and others here) tend to keep an eye on a number of the other
c.s.i.p.g.* newsgroups anyway, and often re-direct people towards
.action. Although I admit, c.s.i.p.g.misc isn't one of those on my
watch-list. Even back in Usenet's heyday, it wasn't the most active of
places ;-)
 Still, if you feel strongly about it, you're welcome to try. I'd
suggest posting regularly in .misc (possibly cross-posting to .action
or others) and seeing if you can get people to follow you there. While
I've no real desire to relocate, neither do I have any particular
objection to it, and if you can make .misc a going concern, I'd
probably end up there too.
 Although I think maybe comp.sys.ibm.pc.games (no .action, .misc,
.sports, .strategy, etc.) would be a better choice. I was against the
subdivision of that newsgroup from the start. And only thirty-five
years later, I've been proven right! ;-)
 

The World of Tanks forum used to be like that. All these little sub-forums, so to discuss a particular tank it was nation->tank class making about forty or so sub-forums. What actually happened was at least 90% of the posts were made in the gameplay sub-forum.