🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve Sell wrote:
>
> For your newsgroups file:
> alt.cellular.verizon    Cellular phone and wireless web service provider.
>
> Charter:
>
> The alt.cellular.verizon newsgroup is to be used for discussion of the
> Verizon cellular service (phone, internet, wireless web, etc.).  It is
> intended to be a forum for the exchange of experiences, hints, tips, tricks,
> and the like for Verizon's services and/or phones, as well as general
> information about cellular service as it relates to or affects Verizon.  In
> general, posts should be specifically related to the Verizon cellular
> service, however some posts regarding cellular phone systems in general may
> also be of interest if Verizon is in some way a subset of the system
> referenced.

You need a statement prohibiting binaries.
What is your position on advertising and also, posting in HTML?

And Adam's right--please don't start new threads.  It makes it difficult
for the regulars in here to follow which part of what discussion because
there's so many articles in this group.  Help us to help you <g>.

B/

Steve Sell wrote:
>
> On 8/27/00 9:34 PM, "Brian Mailman" <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

> > And Adam's right--please don't start new threads.  It makes it difficult
> > for the regulars in here to follow which part of what discussion because
> > there's so many articles in this group.  Help us to help you <g>.
>
> Sorry!  I misread Adam's email -- I thought he wanted a new thread because
> the other one didn't id the newsgroup in the subject.

LOL *puts flame cannon away*

--
FD

Steve Sell <swsell@bellatlantic.net.invalid> wrote:
>On 8/27/00 10:43 PM, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>> Steve Sell <swsell@bellatlantic.net.invalid> wrote:

>>>Justification:

>>>A Deja Power search in the alt.cellular.* tree using the word "Verizon"
>>>found exactly 1622 posts between the dates of May 26 2000 and Aug 26 2000,
>>>that's an average of 18 posts a day.

>>You should have searched alt.cellular*, not alt.cellular.*. Also search
>>comp.dcom.*. Incidentally, that's a 93 day period.

>>1622 (or more when you broaden the search) is a raw number. Review a
>>representative sample of the posts for the type of discussion you are
>>seeking, calculate the percentage, then apply the percentage to the raw
>>number for an estimated final number.

>Okay.  I didn't see that in any of the "How to" FAQs, but I'll get better
>numbers for the control message.

Did you read -= Hawk =- 's FAQ, "Details on doing a Deja power search", listed
in his .sig? My advice above is more specific than his FAQ, though. You, the
proponent, must make a value judgment about the quality of the result reported
by Deja. The search engine doesn't distinguish discussion from mere mentions
in lists or references in .sigs.

Steve Sell wrote:

> Ok, I'll append a "The posting of binaries is prohibited." sentence to the
> end of the charter.  As for ads, I feel that an individual selling his or
> her equipment is okay, but I would rather not see posts from commercial
> retailers.  However there is one extremely helpful individual that owns or
> runs syncablesolutions.com who refers people to his place, which I think is
> okay beacause they are not "ad posts".  Make sense?

No, not quite.

You can't play favorites... either you're allowing advertising or not.

Hmmm.  On about a fifth reading I think I see what you might mean.  I'm
thinking what you're meaning is "one-time ads for an individual selling
or buying equipment is permitted; however, commercial advertising is
prohibited."

Well, tags are your friends.  [WTB] and [WTS] in the subject line
(wanted-to-buy and wanted-to-sell) for individual-to-individual sales.
That way, you may be able to justify an acv.marketplace group later,
make the articles easier to count.  Does take work keeping after folk,
but as we tell the proponents, "sending out the control message is the
easiest part."

> > And Adam's right--please don't start new threads.  It makes it difficult
> > for the regulars in here to follow which part of what discussion because
> > there's so many articles in this group.  Help us to help you <g>.

> Sorry!  I misread Adam's email -- I thought he wanted a new thread because
> the other one didn't id the newsgroup in the subject.

:)

B/

On 8/27/00 9:34 PM, "Brian Mailman" <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote:

> Steve Sell wrote:
>>
>> For your newsgroups file:
>> alt.cellular.verizon    Cellular phone and wireless web service provider.
>>
>> Charter:
>>
>> The alt.cellular.verizon newsgroup is to be used for discussion of the
>> Verizon cellular service (phone, internet, wireless web, etc.).  It is
>> intended to be a forum for the exchange of experiences, hints, tips, tricks,
>> and the like for Verizon's services and/or phones, as well as general
>> information about cellular service as it relates to or affects Verizon.  In
>> general, posts should be specifically related to the Verizon cellular
>> service, however some posts regarding cellular phone systems in general may
>> also be of interest if Verizon is in some way a subset of the system
>> referenced.
> You need a statement prohibiting binaries.
> What is your position on advertising and also, posting in HTML?

Ok, I'll append a "The posting of binaries is prohibited." sentence to the
end of the charter.  As for ads, I feel that an individual selling his or
her equipment is okay, but I would rather not see posts from commercial
retailers.  However there is one extremely helpful individual that owns or
runs syncablesolutions.com who refers people to his place, which I think is
okay beacause they are not "ad posts".  Make sense?

> And Adam's right--please don't start new threads.  It makes it difficult
> for the regulars in here to follow which part of what discussion because
> there's so many articles in this group.  Help us to help you <g>.
>
> B/

Sorry!  I misread Adam's email -- I thought he wanted a new thread because
the other one didn't id the newsgroup in the subject.

-Steve

Steve Sell <swsell@bellatlantic.net.invalid> wrote:

When you send the control message, you may not use a munged address on any of
the From, Sender, or Approved headers.

>For your newsgroups file:
>alt.cellular.verizon    Cellular phone and wireless web service provider.

That brief description is better.

>Charter:

>The alt.cellular.verizon newsgroup is to be used for discussion of the
>Verizon cellular service (phone, internet, wireless web, etc.).  It is
>intended to be a forum for the exchange of experiences, hints, tips, tricks,
>and the like for Verizon's services and/or phones, as well as general
>information about cellular service as it relates to or affects Verizon.  In
>general, posts should be specifically related to the Verizon cellular
>service, however some posts regarding cellular phone systems in general may
>also be of interest if Verizon is in some way a subset of the system
>referenced.

Don't forget to ban binaries; that belongs in the Charter.

>Justification:

>A Deja Power search in the alt.cellular.* tree using the word "Verizon"
>found exactly 1622 posts between the dates of May 26 2000 and Aug 26 2000,
>that's an average of 18 posts a day.

You should have searched alt.cellular*, not alt.cellular.*. Also search
comp.dcom.*. Incidentally, that's a 93 day period.

1622 (or more when you broaden the search) is a raw number. Review a represen-
tative sample of the posts for the type of discussion you are seeking,
calculate the percentage, then apply the percentage to the raw number for an
estimated final number.

On 8/27/00 10:43 PM, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:

> Steve Sell <swsell@bellatlantic.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> When you send the control message, you may not use a munged address on any of
> the From, Sender, or Approved headers.

The control message will have my proper unaltered email address in all
appropriate places

>> For your newsgroups file:
>> alt.cellular.verizon    Cellular phone and wireless web service provider.
>
> That brief description is better.

Thanks!

[snip]

> Don't forget to ban binaries; that belongs in the Charter.

Will do.

>> Justification:
>
>> A Deja Power search in the alt.cellular.* tree using the word "Verizon"
>> found exactly 1622 posts between the dates of May 26 2000 and Aug 26 2000,
>> that's an average of 18 posts a day.
>
> You should have searched alt.cellular*, not alt.cellular.*. Also search
> comp.dcom.*. Incidentally, that's a 93 day period.
>
> 1622 (or more when you broaden the search) is a raw number. Review a represen-
> tative sample of the posts for the type of discussion you are seeking,
> calculate the percentage, then apply the percentage to the raw number for an
> estimated final number.

Okay.  I didn't see that in any of the "How to" FAQs, but I'll get better
numbers for the control message.

-Steve

On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:59:21 GMT, Steve Sell <swsell@bellatlantic.net.invalid>
wrote:

>For your newsgroups file:
>alt.cellular.verizon    Cellular phone and wireless web service provider.
>
>
>Charter:
>
>The alt.cellular.verizon newsgroup is to be used for discussion of the
>Verizon cellular service (phone, internet, wireless web, etc.).  It is
>intended to be a forum for the exchange of experiences, hints, tips, tricks,
>and the like for Verizon's services and/or phones, as well as general
>information about cellular service as it relates to or affects Verizon.  In
>general, posts should be specifically related to the Verizon cellular
>service, however some posts regarding cellular phone systems in general may
>also be of interest if Verizon is in some way a subset of the system(s) or
>service(s) referenced.
>
>HTML posting is prohibited. The posting of binaries and commercial
>advertising is prohibited.  However, individuals may post one-time messages
>to sell personal items relating to Verizon products and/or services.
>
>
>Justification:
>
>A Deja Power search in the alt.cellular.* tree using the word "Verizon"
>found exactly 1732 posts between the dates of May 31 2000 and Aug 31 2000.
>A random sampling of those posts indicates approximately 9% are not
>appropriate for the proposed group, leaving 1576 posts.  This is an average
>of 17 posts a day.
>
>
>Proponent:
>
>Steve Sell <swsell@bellatlantic.net>


I am not sure what the puropse of this proposal is since the newsgroup has
already been created and is on flash.net.  A booster perhaps? If so it does not
have to come through alt.config.

It's very good.

Ask your ISP to add the group if you cannot see it.

++++the contol.newgroup message+++++++++++++++++
From swsell@bellatlantic.net Sat Aug 26 20:02:10 2000
Path:
news.isc.org!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!cyclone2.ba-dsg.net!typhoon1.ba-dsg.net.POSTED!swsell
Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.cellular.verizon
From: Steve Sell <swsell@bellatlantic.net>
Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.cellular.verizon
Followup-To: poster
Reply-To: swsell@bellatlantic.net
Keywords: wireless, cellular, pcs, verizon
Message-ID: <260820002302563826%swsell@bellatlantic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/5.0.0
Control: newgroup alt.cellular.verizon
Comments: For discussion of the Verizon Wireless services.
Lines: 6
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:02:57 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.25.77
X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@bellatlantic.net
X-Trace: typhoon1.ba-dsg.net 967345377 151.203.25.77 (Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:02:57
EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:02:57 EDT
Xref: news.isc.org control.newgroup:283759

For your newsgroups file:
alt.cellular.verizon  For discussions related to the wireless provider


This newsgroup is intended to provide a forum to discuss the nation
wide wireless services provided by Verizon Wireless.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



--
Eugene A. Calame   eacalame@excite.com   http://homepages.go.com/~eacalame/
Austin, Texas USA
Click  http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html  to help.

For your newsgroups file:
alt.cellular.verizon    Cellular phone and wireless web service provider.


Charter:

The alt.cellular.verizon newsgroup is to be used for discussion of the
Verizon cellular service (phone, internet, wireless web, etc.).  It is
intended to be a forum for the exchange of experiences, hints, tips, tricks,
and the like for Verizon's services and/or phones, as well as general
information about cellular service as it relates to or affects Verizon.  In
general, posts should be specifically related to the Verizon cellular
service, however some posts regarding cellular phone systems in general may
also be of interest if Verizon is in some way a subset of the system(s) or
service(s) referenced.

HTML posting is prohibited. The posting of binaries and commercial
advertising is prohibited.  However, individuals may post one-time messages
to sell personal items relating to Verizon products and/or services.


Justification:

A Deja Power search in the alt.cellular.* tree using the word "Verizon"
found exactly 1732 posts between the dates of May 31 2000 and Aug 31 2000.
A random sampling of those posts indicates approximately 9% are not
appropriate for the proposed group, leaving 1576 posts.  This is an average
of 17 posts a day.


Proponent:

Steve Sell <swsell@bellatlantic.net>

Eugene A. Calame <eacalame@excite.com> wrote:
>Steve Sell <swsell@bellatlantic.net.invalid> wrote:

>>For your newsgroups file:
>>alt.cellular.verizon    Cellular phone and wireless web service provider.

>I am not sure what the puropse of this proposal is

I agree with Eugene.

The newgroup message had been sent Sunday, making every bit of discussion
after that point moot. It was missing a required header. Sent TGOS style,
no charter (one sentence description) and no Justification.

>since the newsgroup has already been created and is on flash.net.

Obviously, it was good enough to be created on one server that we know of,
and archived at ISC.

>A booster perhaps? If so it does not have to come through alt.config.

It can only be a booster if sent identical to the original message. If the
proponent sends a later version of the proposal, it can't no longer be a
booster; it becomes a re-chartered newsgroup.

In a re-chartered group, a proper Justification, then, will no longer be
a count of Verizon discussion taking place in other newsgroups, but the
actual traffic on the group. Likely, it's only been created on a handful
of servers, so there will be little traffic. I'm not going to say anything if
you use the draft Justification, but I will tell you it won't be honest.
Probably, no one will send a rmgroup for the false Justification.

Re-chartering of newsgroups is controversial, definitely not a well-recognized
practice among news administrators. Any news administrator aware of the
original control message, especially one that refused to create it on that
basis, may be reluctant to create it on the second one.

Count on working a lot harder to get this newsgroup created on some servers
than you would have needed to otherwise, had you not sent the first newgroup.

Major, major mistake. Too bad; this likely would have been a high-trafficked
group. It'll take longer to become well-established, and you will have to
live with the consequences.

I learned a lesson from all this: Always check the archives before offering
advice to proponents who obviously don't want any.

"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>
> Eugene A. Calame <eacalame@excite.com> wrote:
> >Steve Sell <swsell@bellatlantic.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>For your newsgroups file:
> >>alt.cellular.verizon    Cellular phone and wireless web service provider.
>
> >I am not sure what the puropse of this proposal is

> I agree with Eugene.

<aol>me too</aol>

> The newgroup message had been sent Sunday, making every bit of discussion
> after that point moot. It was missing a required header. Sent TGOS style,
> no charter (one sentence description) and no Justification.

:(

> I learned a lesson from all this: Always check the archives before offering
> advice to proponents who obviously don't want any.

On the other hand, he _did_ go to the effort of rewriting his
description, following the advice(s) about charter and justification so
maybe that assessment is a bit harsh.  Could be he, for whatever reason,
thought he could do it the way he did at first...maybe he's still
reading and can provide an explanation.

Also, you don't think the "re-chartering" may help with some providers
that may balk at adding a group with such a barebones cmsg?

B/

Brian Mailman <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>Eugene A. Calame <eacalame@excite.com> wrote:
>>>Steve Sell <swsell@bellatlantic.net.invalid> wrote:

>>>>For your newsgroups file:
>>>>alt.cellular.verizon    Cellular phone and wireless web service provider.

>>>I am not sure what the puropse of this proposal is

>>I agree with Eugene.

><aol>me too</aol>

Heh.

>>The newgroup message had been sent Sunday, making every bit of discussion
>>after that point moot. It was missing a required header. Sent TGOS style,
>>no charter (one sentence description) and no Justification.

>:(

In response to this fiasco, g wrote me to say, "You arrogant asshole.
Look at the messes YOU have caused with YOUR arrogance cloaked in a bogus
'attempt' to help someone.  Don't blame Steve for getting pissed at you
and sending the newgroup message.  I sure don't."

For those of you, like g, who think Steve Sell's action are my fault, I would
point out that the newgroup was sent 1/2 hour after the initial proposal was
made in alt.config, before anyone had commented on it. I posted the first
followup three hours after the newgroup was sent.

>>I learned a lesson from all this: Always check the archives before offering
>>advice to proponents who obviously don't want any.

>On the other hand, he _did_ go to the effort of rewriting his description,
>following the advice(s) about charter and justification so maybe that
>assessment is a bit harsh.  Could be he, for whatever reason, thought he
>could do it the way he did at first...maybe he's still reading and can
>provide an explanation.

>Also, you don't think the "re-chartering" may help with some providers
>that may balk at adding a group with such a barebones cmsg?

Your guess is as good as mine. Well, around here, my guesses are said to be
worse than everyone else's.

This is my theory: Any news administrator reviewing control messages would
put this one on the list of newsgroups never to be created (even if that list
is only in the back of his mind). He'd notice a second control message while
the first was still fresh in his mind, and wouldn't bother to read it to see
if it had improved any.