On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:50:56 GMT, Jim Riley
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Jim Riley" wrote

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).

Pretty much the same in Rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.dslr, and
rec.photo.zlr. zlr only gets a token posting, while dslr and digital
are almost carbon copies of each other (with a few exceptions)

The question to ask is why is a new group or groups being proposed?
If it's due to OT posts, political rants which are OT posts, people
who cant get along, or just a plain high signal to noise they want to
avoid, none of these are valid reasons or will they work.

OTOH if there are enough people to make another newsgroup active and
viable, that is a topic not now adequately covered it's worth a try,
but there are a lot of dead news groups that sounded like a good idea
to people at the time. "In general" for most topics we already have
too many news groups and another one just dilutes the content on those
already in existence.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com