Re: Does anyone think this group needs splitting into subgroups?
From: <seci_at_ludens.elte.hu>
Date: 1996/03/01
Message-ID: <1996Mar1.143904.26036_at_ludens>#1/1
> 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.
>
> Keeping it united is a time saver.
Date: 1996/03/01
Message-ID: <1996Mar1.143904.26036_at_ludens>#1/1
Hello readers,
>>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.
>
> Keeping it united is a time saver.
What about splitting it to moderated technical subgroups AND leave the original group as post what you like without reading the manuals and thinking of the problem first?
(the drop coulumn question is discussed as many times as the famous C question char *s; scanf("%s",s); is not working at all...)
Maybe it is enough to have a JOBS subgroup?
Regards
Peter Received on Fri Mar 01 1996 - 00:00:00 CET