According to Google's archive the last post approved to rec.humor.funny
was on 30 July 2009 and for rec.humor.funny.reruns the last post was
April 7, 2008 (excluding automatic submissions). Probe messages resulted
in no response for either newsgroup.
On 2010-12-26, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
According to Google's archive the last post approved to rec.humor.funny
was on 30 July 2009 and for rec.humor.funny.reruns the last post was
April 7, 2008 (excluding automatic submissions). Probe messages resulted
in no response for either newsgroup.
Have you tried to contact Brad at btm at templetons dot com?
Mind you, my post above allegedly dated 2nd March was actually posted
8th January and took two months to get approved, so maybe there is
some sort of time dilation effect going on here;-)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2010-12-26, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
According to Google's archive the last post approved to rec.humor.funny
was on 30 July 2009 and for rec.humor.funny.reruns the last post was
April 7, 2008 (excluding automatic submissions). Probe messages resulted >>> in no response for either newsgroup.
Have you tried to contact Brad at btm at templetons dot com?
I mentioned to him that the automatic posts to
rec.humor.funny.reruns had ceased in 2015. He said:
"I may take a while to get to it, but thanks for the note"
It's been quite a while...
On 2010-12-26, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
According to Google's archive the last post approved to rec.humor.funny
was on 30 July 2009 and for rec.humor.funny.reruns the last post was
April 7, 2008 (excluding automatic submissions). Probe messages resulted
in no response for either newsgroup.
Have you tried to contact Brad at btm at templetons dot com?
but really, are you folks so desperate for something to do that the best
you can come up with is going through a convoluted and time-consuming process, the end result of which is the issuance of an RMGROUP that no
one will notice?
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2010-12-26, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
According to Google's archive the last post approved to rec.humor.funny
was on 30 July 2009 and for rec.humor.funny.reruns the last post was
April 7, 2008 (excluding automatic submissions). Probe messages resulted >>> in no response for either newsgroup.
Have you tried to contact Brad at btm at templetons dot com?
The article you're replying to is more than a decade old.
A decade ago, my opinion was that there was justification for removing
dead newsgroups because it might funnel traffic into the ones that
were left. Today, removing dead newsgroups is busy work. I realize
that by posting this article I am including myself in this comment ...
but really, are you folks so desperate for something to do that the
best you can come up with is going through a convoluted and
time-consuming process, the end result of which is the issuance of an
RMGROUP that no one will notice?
And, FWIW, yes, a decade ago I actually did contact Brad.
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2010-12-26, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
According to Google's archive the last post approved to rec.humor.funny
was on 30 July 2009 and for rec.humor.funny.reruns the last post was
April 7, 2008 (excluding automatic submissions). Probe messages resulted >> in no response for either newsgroup.
Have you tried to contact Brad at btm at templetons dot com?
The article you're replying to is more than a decade old. A decade ago,
my opinion was that there was justification for removing dead newsgroups because it might funnel traffic into the ones that were left.
Today, removing dead newsgroups is busy work.
Greetings.
On 11/03/2022 10.59, Steve Bonine wrote:
but really, are you folks so desperate for something to do that the
best you can come up with is going through a convoluted and
time-consuming process, the end result of which is the issuance of an
RMGROUP that no one will notice?
An important part of why we are doing this is to practise the
procedures, and thereby exercise the associated machinery, to find out
what does and doesn't still work, and then to fix the stuff that's
broken. We recently did a group creation RFD that passed successfully; we've been monitoring which news servers have implemented the NEWGROUP
and have been getting in touch with some of those who haven't to find
out why. And the current deletion RFD has turned up various bugs and incompatibilities in the STUMP moderation software that have since been fixed.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 03:59:44 CST
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2010-12-26, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
According to Google's archive the last post approved to rec.humor.funny >> >> was on 30 July 2009 and for rec.humor.funny.reruns the last post was
April 7, 2008 (excluding automatic submissions). Probe messages resulted >> >> in no response for either newsgroup.
Have you tried to contact Brad at btm at templetons dot com?
The article you're replying to is more than a decade old. A decade ago,
my opinion was that there was justification for removing dead newsgroups
because it might funnel traffic into the ones that were left.
I don't understand the logic behind this. If a group is a dead then it
means that people aren't interested in posting in it so its existence
doesn't act as a distraction from posting in or reading other groups.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 03:59:44 CST
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2010-12-26, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
The article you're replying to is more than a decade old. A decade ago,
my opinion was that there was justification for removing dead newsgroups
because it might funnel traffic into the ones that were left.
I don't understand the logic behind this. If a group is a dead then it
means that people aren't interested in posting in it so its existence
doesn't act as a distraction from posting in or reading other groups.
Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 03:59:44 CST
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2010-12-26, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
The article you're replying to is more than a decade old. A decade ago, >> my opinion was that there was justification for removing dead newsgroups >> because it might funnel traffic into the ones that were left.
I don't understand the logic behind this. If a group is a dead then it means that people aren't interested in posting in it so its existence doesn't act as a distraction from posting in or reading other groups.
It does if there are several groups on the same general topic. At one
point, with lots of activity, it made sense to provide separate groups
for different aspects of the topic. As time passed, there were no
longer enough people to maintain a critical mass of conversation in any
of the subgroups. It might be that if you removed the subgroups that it would concentrate the discussion into one newsgroup, thus creating
enough discussion to make it a viable newsgroup.
This logic was weak a decade ago, and today is silly because there
aren't enough users to concentrate. Back then it seemed worth a shot
since the effort required was small, but it did not work.
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 03:59:44 CST
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
The article you're replying to is more than a decade old. A decade ago, >> my opinion was that there was justification for removing dead newsgroups >> because it might funnel traffic into the ones that were left.
I don't understand the logic behind this. If a group is a dead then it means that people aren't interested in posting in it so its existence doesn't act as a distraction from posting in or reading other groups.
On the contrary, if you read more closely you'll see that these are
moderated groups where the moderator is no longer accepting any
posts (or, since the thread started, even posting their previously
regular automated posts to rec.humor.funny.reruns themselves).
This makes the group precisely a distraction from others because
anyone who wants to post something to rec.humor.funny may still do
so, but their post will never appear there. So they'll have wasted
their time, and if they're new to Usenet then it might discourage
them entirely if they don't understand why their post didn't work.
They also might otherwise have found a working group to post in if rec.humor.funny hadn't distracted them.
I agree that there is little point in deleting unmoderated groups,
but leaving these non-functional moderated groups around as little
black holes swallowing up new posts will only serve to force people (especially new users) to the conclusion that Usenet is not only
dead, but also broken. Of couse the ideal would always be to find a
new moderator.
So I, for one, thank the board for doing this work. Though with
this thread it's a bit of a moot point to make a decade later.
Creating new newsgroups is rather different than removing dead ones. If
you can convince yourself (royal "yourself") that there will be activity
in a new group, creating it makes sense.
But removing groups? Why?
As for "exercise the associated machinery" . . . for how many months, or perhaps years, was the moderation broken for news.groups.proposals? It
does not take a removal RFD to see that submissions are not reaching the group ... it just takes giving a damn.
Why does the group even need to
exist now? There was a time when separating the discussion of new newsgroups from news.groups made sense (although even then it was
contentious to move it to a moderated newsgroup). These days, with the level of activity like it is, making the discussion easier is a goal,
and a moderated newsgroup doesn't do that.
On the contrary, if you read more closely you'll see that these are
moderated groups where the moderator is no longer accepting any
posts (or, since the thread started, even posting their previously
regular automated posts to rec.humor.funny.reruns themselves).
[...]
So I, for one, thank the board for doing this work. Though with
this thread it's a bit of a moot point to make a decade later.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 09:51:26 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,844 |
| Posted today: | 1 |