Re: Does anyone think this group needs splitting into subgroups?
Date: 1996/02/24
Message-ID: <4gnikl$qm2_at_inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com>#1/1
In article <312e4815.166625604_at_mimmon>, gedau_at_mim.com.au (George Dau) writes:
|>Stan Driggs <stan_at_ensco.com> wrote:
|>
|>>Orange Software Pty Ltd wrote:
|>>>
|>>> Agree
|>>
|>>Me too. This was attempted about a year ago, and it was
|>>voted down. I stopped reading it about that time, since
|>>it is a pain to scan through the whole group. So I for one
|>>would welcome a second attempt.
|>>
|>>The subgroups are fairly natural: DBA, Forms (Dev2000), SQL, Pro*C,
|>>jobs... It still astounds me that this was voted down before.
|>>Perhaps most Oracle users have lots of spare time. Go figure.
|>>
|>No, it was voted down because we had a look at what actually happened to other
|>busy groups that were split. People then crosspost to all the groups and you
|>end up with followups crossposted to all groups. This increases the number of
|>articles you have to read through, and means you have to scan things you are not
|>interrested in several times instead of once.
If you have a news reader that allows you to skip crossposted articles this is not a problem. That means you read it once and don't see it anywhere else.
I think this newsgroup should be splitted into sub groups.
- Harri
Harri Kaukovuo, Oracle Corporation hkaukovu_at_us.oracle.com ** The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and ** do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation.