Re: RFD uk.d-i-y

[Andrew Hodgson]

Originally posted in UN; FU set.

alex.sh@w in :

I am submitting this request for discussion via uk.net. If this is >incorrect please advise me. Also please tell me to which group >responses must be posted so that I can inform subscribers to uk.d-i-y.

Others have commented on this and told you the correct place to go.

>uk.d-i-y is a very successful group regularly attracting 150 plus >postings a day. I am often interested in a particular area of d-i-y >and find it time consuming to sort through all the messages and would, >therefore, like to suggest the creation of the following groups: > >uk.d-i-y.construction >uk.d-i-y.decorating >uk.d-i-y.electrical >uk.d-i-y.gardening >uk.d-i-y. joinery >uk.d-i-y.plumbing > >The existing uk.d-i-y could remain as a miscellaneous group > >The charter for the new groups would be identical to the existing one >except discussion etc. would be limited to a particular area.

I would certainly welcome this change after the relevant RFD's had been drawn up and we could discuss possible sub-groups. Also this could be a good time to discuss moving the group to a sub hierarchy such as uk.rec.d-i-y.*...

Andrew.

[Andy Hall]

Several comments.

1) 150 or so messages a day does not constitute heavy traffic.

2) There are several news agent programs with search and filter capabilities whereby people can filter areas of interest. There is also a very good archive search in the form of Google Groups.

3) Splitting into lots of subgroups would require a lot of them to cover the broad range of subjects discussed. This would result in low levels of traffic if the numbers of subgroups is large enough to accommodate this, and substantial "misfiling" of articles. The same would happen if the number of subgroups were too small. The result either way would be a need to search in multiple groups to find things. Quite often it is helpful to refer people to previously posted articles to avoid repetition.

4) Quite often topics fall under multiple categories - e.g. heating involving plumbing and electrics; tools relating to woodworking and metalworking and so on.

In conclusion, I think that it should be left as a single group.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Paul Harper]

150 posts a day is quite light volume, and not in itself sufficient in my opinion to warrant a whole sub-hierarchy of groups.

A mechanism used quite successfully on other groups is one of "tagging" whereby topics of a particular nature are tagged at the front of their subject line.

Using the above as examples:

[plumbing]How do I fit a condensing boiler? [decorating]What's the new Dulux pink-then-white paint like? [construction]Double or triple glazing for conservatories?

and so on.

Obviously it relies upon people's co-operation, but it's a simple change to an existing charter, and if the wording "encourages" people to use it, shouldn't cause too many ruffled feathers as it's implemented.

Just a suggestion.

Paul.

[S Viemeister]

150 posts isn't particularly heavy traffic.

Suggestions to split uk.d-i-y have been made a number of times - most current posters seem to feel it's fine as it is. Dividing it up into a number of different groups would lose some of the lively 'cross-fertilisation' which makes the group so useful.

It's quite easy to simply ignore threads in which you have no interest, and watch those which appeal to you.

Sheila Mackay Viemeister

[PoP]

I concur.

To be honest I found the following online forums only today, might be of interest to others who want to discuss something a bit more focussed than general DIY:

know I should have found this before, but to be honest I wasn't looking for it :)

PoP

[Steve Walker]

[Grunff]

IMO one of uk.d-i-y's biggest strengths is the vast depth of cross-dicipline knowledge available within the group. The vast majority of threads end up being cross-dicipline.

I believe that splitting the group up into sub-groups would risk fragmenting the huge and very valuable knowledge base.

[Wanderer]

I'll second that.

[Toby]

It's UK (mostly) It's diy (mainly) It's fine as is (me too) Never seen a post from the OP in the NG so why the suggestion?

Toby.

[chris French]

just another voice to add to those against this proposal, for reasons voived in this thread and in previous discussions.

[Owain]

"Andy Hall" wrote in uk.d-i-y [and uk.net.news.config - removed] | Andrew Hodgson wrote: | >Originally posted in UN; FU set. | >alex.sh@w in : [snipped] | >>uk.d-i-y is a very successful group regularly attracting 150 plus | >>postings a day. I am often interested in a particular area of d-i-y | >>and find it time consuming to sort through all the messages and would, | >>therefore, like to suggest the creation of the following groups: | >>uk.d-i-y.construction | >>uk.d-i-y.decorating | >>uk.d-i-y.electrical | >>uk.d-i-y.gardening | >>uk.d-i-y. joinery | >>uk.d-i-y.plumbing | 4) Quite often topics fall under multiple categories - e.g. heating | involving plumbing and electrics; tools relating to woodworking and | metalworking and so on.

I agree; the categories mentioned above are not the ones into which most regulars would wish to see posts sorted. I would in jest suggest:

uk.d-i-y.combis.and.thermal.stores uk.d-i-y.who.owns.britain.and.the.evil.of.planning.policies uk.d-i-y.only.corgis.can.do.gas.work uk.d-i-y.excuses.for.buying.a.new.power.tool

More cynically, we might as well have two main subdivisions:

uk.d-i-y.things.the.government.have.stopped.diyers.doing.in.their.own.homes uk.d-i-y.things.the.government.are.going.to.stop.diyers.doing.in.their.own.h omes

maybe we could even have

uk.d-i-y.nostalgia

that might develop into its own hierachy of

uk.d-i-y.nostalgia.pargetting uk.d-i-y.nostalgia.creosote

Owain

[uk.net.news.config removed]

[geoff]

In message , Andrew Hodgson writes

This has surfaced a number of times. The general consensus has always been to keep it as one group

bear in mind that:

There is quite often useful input to a thread from people who might not look in the subgroup of interest

Topics quite often cross boundaries

people pick up useful tips which might not be of direct use to them at the time but useful later

While the number of posts varies from time to time, I don't think it's of a level where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages

[geoff]

In message , PoP writes

In total there are 10 users online (1 Registered, 0 Hidden and 9 Guests) Most users ever online was 49 on Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:40 pm

It's not a very high usage forum

[John Eastwood]

In article , Andrew Hodgson writes

It seems eminently sensible to subdivide in this way if necessary, but is there any evidence that

1. each of the proposed groups will carry the traffic worthy of its creation, and
2. that the groups will be sufficiently distinct to avoid any major crossposting?

I suspect that a daily total of 150 posts is insufficient to support so many subgroups. The creation of all these groups would increase traffic only because posters would feel an increased necessity to crosspost.

I would expect that Andrew has some breakdown of the sort of subjects currently dealt with on uk.diy, however wouldn't uk.d-i-y.gardening be stomping on uk.rec.gardening? There is also the possibility that groups such as u.d.electrical and u.d.plumbing, for instance could become choked with trade adverts. If that's not the object, write it out at charter stage.

[stefek.zaba]

and IMO too

Seconded, thirded, and fourthed by all my posting personalities. (Aeiiee, it's true - I *am* IMM ;-) A d-i-y'er is by definition *not* a specialist, and is typically undertaking a *whole* job: it may have one discipline as its major component, but may entail redecorating/keeping redecoration to a minimum, and benefit from hints-n-tips on 'while you've got access to do task X it's worth doing tasks Y and Z as well'. For all these reasons, Grunff's belief that

is one which I heartily share. And as others have said, the 150 posts per day don't represent excessive volume, especially as most posters are sensible enough to offer a specific title for each basenote rather than a daft thing like "Question". (You *do* all use real threaded newsreaders, don't you? Non-threading newsreaders are timewasting devilspawn!)

Stefek

[David Micklem]

Certainly not too bad if you use a reasonable newsreader.

Absolutely. Splitting it up would be a real PITA.

And some things defy categorisation...

Splitting us up seems to get proposed every few years, usually by a non-regular.

It isn't broken. Don't fix it.

David

[Rod Hewitt]

Andrew Hodgson wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Which will result in a trap for the unwary - everything worth posting will remain here - hence the others will have a few questions and very few answers.

Leave it be - but voluntary tagging is a reasonable idea.

Rod

[geoff]

In message , Owain writes

You forgot, of course,

uk.d-i-y.threads.which.have.spun.off.topic.and.out.of.control.to.the.anno yance.of.a.newbie.who.asked.a.stupid.question.in.the.first.place

[Andrew Hodgson]

John Eastwood in :

I should just point out that I did not make the claim of 150 posts per day, and that I was not the op. I do read uk.d-i-y and find that because I am not particularly specialised in some areas (i.e, woodworking et al), that I tend to delete a lot of threads. However, I do find it useful on occasions.

Andrew.

[OldRedNeck]

sounds about as sensible as going to left hand drive starting tomorrow.