[continued from previous message]   
      
   >6 - A Greater Signal to Noise Problem   
   >   
   >Addressing #3 and #4 would not be against the tradition of   
   >usenet, in fact the exact opposite!  It would get back to   
   >basics to have a coherent topic list of 15-20 groups, and   
   >a basic TOS check for access to the hierarchy.  OM can   
   >provide this, and 5 and 6 as well, and has all kinds of   
   >flexibility including the quick launch none of you have   
   >really seen yet.   
   >   
   >I think many of you realized the Big 8 was kaput when I   
   >first posted the 16-group hierarchy.  It was kaput long   
   >before I posted it, but on top of the Optional Moderation   
   >and Decline of Usenet (cesspool barrier, signal to noise),   
   >those 16 just decimate what's left.  95% of potential new   
   >users would pick the 16 over the two dog's breakfasts   
   >that are the Big 8 and alt.*   
   >   
   >Does this mean *only* those 16 in an OM hierarchy, and   
   >that's Usenet?  No, but I think that's the "shared Usenet"   
   >part that would become the biggest.  The rest is, I think,   
   >Brad's idea of owned groups.  If we have the optmod.*   
   >hierarchy we might also have the owned.* hierarchy and   
   >whatever criteria that has for an individual poster to get   
   >set up with one.  Distributed Usenet and news readers   
   >and substantive discussion threads are a plus you don't   
   >get on Facebook or Twitter.  Groups of high-quality posters   
   >might get together and become highly subscribed to   
   >and widely read.  Usenet Performance Art might thrive   
   >in some of those.  To start a "Yahoo!" or "Google" group   
   >just isn't the same feeling as it being *your* group.  It's   
   >right there in the title that it's the big corporate behemoth's   
   >group.  So I think Brad is onto something there.  New Usenet   
   >might be very well suited to owned groups.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)