Re: COMP.DATABASES.ORACLE split

Jim Smith <jim_at_jimsmith.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <55u512$ksk_at_wormer.fn.net>, "Jack L. Swayze Sr."
>>
>>If this is not a service for the customers of Oracle, then who is it a
>>service for?
>>
>>Sheesh! Another one not knowing or caring about the customer!
>>
 

>Usenet newsgroups in general and comp.databases.oracle.* in particular
>are nothing to do with Oracle Corporation.

<snip>

I know that, silly.

What you fail to realize is that, despite this newsgroup not being supplied from Oracle, it still has customers. Those customers are the people who are more interested in getting a database up and keeping it up rather than participate in the newsgroup form of politics.

The very individuals who would add the most value to a newsgroup such as this will be the ones 1) chided the most for not understanding the split and 2) alienated by the loss of this newsgroup.

What you guys from News.Groups fail to realize is the economics of this whole situation, and that is because you do not understand your customers, the readers and posters of the newsgroups.

Borrowing from the discipline of ER-Diagramming, and Normalization, it is obvious to me that you should name things according to their most obvious purpose. Naming a group that is to (primarily) contain Jobs Postings something like: Comp.Databases.Oracle.Marketplace (or whatever) violates that principle. I would expect to see a newsgroup for job postings to have the word 'Job' in it. The same way that a database table that has something to do with prices should have the word 'Price' in it. It would be obvious to a database professional that the name of the aggregate (a table or a newsgroup) should be indicative of its contents.

The fact that the majority of the votes received agreed with the name of 'market' (or whatever) indicates to me that the voters were not primarily database professionals, as we are aware of the significance of naming something misleading.

You, no doubt, will respond that the readers of, and posters to, newsgroups have a responsibility to understand the newsgroup process. I say that is bunk. It shows a total lack of understanding about the customer and about fundamental economics.

The 'centrally controlled and planned' approach went the way of the Berlin wall. (I hope you understand the analogy, there.) Unless you make the effort to understand and facilitate the customer, then the customer will show you his displeasure by leaving your product as soon as someone else figures out what the customer truly needs and how to best supply it.

I would be willing to bet there are dozens, if not hundreds, of unused usegroups because of this very same principle. Whether or not you are willing to admit it, you are in a competition. I cannot say what the other medium will be that will replace this one, but it will come. You win that competition by understanding the customer, not demanding that the customer understand you (or your newsgroup bureaucracy).

'Keystroke'
KeystrkTX_at_AOL.COM Received on Mon Nov 11 1996 - 00:00:00 CET