Too much cross-posting?

[Bud Hovell]

In article <20239 at cup.portal.com> thad at cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes:
>Private email I've received clearly indicates that MOST of the people who
>NEED to receive the unix-pc.* groups are not receiving them, and they're
>extremely thankful FOR the cross-postings to comp.sys.att from unix-pc.*

Made necessary *ONLY* because the unix-pc group(s) do not receive standard
distribution. If they did, 100% of the people who wanted to read it(them)
would be able to do so if they were a usenet subscriber. An increase in
readership of 667%, if your estimates (below) are accurate.

THE READERSHIP IS SMALL BECAUSE THE DISTRIBUTION IS, DE FACTO, SEVERELY
RESTRICTED!!

>Three cases in point:
>
>1) the WD2010 chip group buy I'm organizing.  85% of the responses arrived
>   from people who ONLY saw it on comp.sys.att
>
>2) Most (if not all) of Europe is NOT receiving unix-pc.*; my contact in
>   Brussels writes that his receipt of unix-pc material is ONLY via the
>   comp.sys.att newsgroup (ref. Jim Sanchez at Sytek).
>
>3) Clearly 90% of the "Thanks!" email I received for my recent posting of the
>   new s4diag UNIXPC diagnostics came from people who ONLY could get it from
>   comp.sys.att.

It seems to me that you are arguing my case.

>
>The volume of postings to BOTH comp.sys.att and the unix-pc.* groups do NOT
>warrant further discussion of restriction/polarization/etc; there simply
>aren't that many articles.  I can store more than an average weeks' worth of
>postings to both groups on a single 5-1/4" floppy (400Kbytes).
>
>I personally prefer that all UNIXPC-related material be only in the unix-pc.*
>newsgroups, but the reality of the situation shows that MANY users would
>unduly suffer (by being left out) if we followed Greg A. Woods' suggestion.

Now wait a minute! This is self-fulling logic. Your inability to exercise this
preference rests only on the unwillingness to consider making unix-pc.* a
standard distribution. And I entirely support your preference: that was the
original point of opening this discussion.

>*MY* suggestion is that ALL unix-pc.* material be cross-posted to comp.sys.att
>and for people to fix their brain-damaged mail readers.  Worst case is for

Yes - 'rn' seems to have a problem here. The site name appears in the Xrefs
line, but still doesn't mark cross-postings as read. Any gurus out there who
can suggest how to address this condition are invited to do so. We hope to 
get after this problem again in a few days - we have a busted floppy-drive
(last repaired just 3 months ago!), so will be off the air to get it fixed.

>someone to simply type an "n"; are the lazy readers out there THAT calorie
>conscious re: burning 1/2 calorie moving one's index finger?  :-)   Sheesh,
>are people that unable to cope with the vagaries of Usenet?  We're NOT talking
>about cretin-JJ "Puh-LEEZE HELP ME!" postings; we're talking about postings
>and responses from people who have legitimate questions, concerns and answers
>about their computing investment.

Presumably. But, sheesh, what bearing does this have on the main issue?

>Lest we forget: the UNIXPC *IS* an AT&T product.  Activity surrounding the

AT&T appears to be the primary force dedicated to erasing any remaining
evidence of their participation in what has gotta be one of the greatest
marketing blunders of the century.

>UNIXPC has been growing by leaps and bounds during the past 18 months, far

Right - maybe we should make it even more difficult to get! Make 'em learn
the secret handshake first, and then require them to post a bond. Set up a
committee to see how many we can blackball. Keep it elite. Right on!

>more so than with the 6300 family.  As an elected officer of the Northern
>California AT&T Computer Users' Group, I *SEE* the evidence.

When I last heard - long ago - from the local AT&T Users Group here in Portland 
the decision had been made (jointly with the co-sponsor, AT&T) to drop the
3B1 users from participation, since the 3B1 wasn't a 'real' AT&T product like
all the other 3B* stuff. One of the then-elected officers, Pam Myrie, was the
one who informed me of this - herself somewhat stunned. The Bay Area is,
perhaps, the center of the universe. However, what happens there does not
invariably govern elsewhere. Indeed, very *little* of what happens there
happens anywhere *else* in the world, based on my few (delightful) visits down
there. :-)

>The comp.sys.att newsgroup is for the benefit of ALL users/owners/operators
>of AT&T equipment, and the evidence I've seen is that over 85% of the UNIXPC
>owners/users are unable to receive the unix-pc.* newsgroups. And for those

I fail to grasp the logic that says that if only 15% of the people who want to
read the group can actually do so, that the obvious remedy is to cross-post
everything to another group that everyone *can* read. Aircraft systems and
governments rely on 100% redundancy. But newsgroups? If one group captures
100% (best case) of what is carried in the other - why have both? Why does 
the second group exist apart from the first? That is, AT ALL? Just get rid 
of the one group and post everything to the other. Or is it intended that the
unix-pc.* group(s) are a 'private network' which is mostly available only
to people who are willing to jump thru the necessary hoops to finally get a
feed? And, dammit, I want to know when I get my Magic Decoder Ring! It should
have arrived by now, shouldn't it? Or do I have to call the Hotline?
 
                                 Bud Hovell

USENET: ...!{sun!nosun|tektronix!percival}!whizz!{bbh|postmaster|sysadmin}
USPO:   McCormick & Hovell, Inc., PO Box 1812, Lake Oswego, OR  USA 97035
MOTD:   "Vote NO!"