John 12/12/2003 13:41:39
Nick wrote:
In article , Andrew Hodgson
writes


I think this is the wrong approach. If the the problem is not enough posts,
then changing the name is not the solution. A new group should be created
because there is a need or demand for it, not because there is not a demand
(or need) for an existing group.
--
John Briggs

There is a demand. Look at the amount of posts uk.rec.sailing gets and compare it to the few posts uk.rec.boats.power gets and remember that the split between sail and power is roughly equal. Of course, there may be other reasons why u.r.b.power only attracts a tenth of the posts of u.r.sailing. Perhaps more sailors have internet access - or motor boats are so unreliable that we can't afford a PC or don't have any time left in the week to get on the net. But I doubt it. I still think it is the name and I still think there is the demand:

I have carried out my own non-scientific research - asking users that participate why they joined the group, how long it took them before noticing the group and joining it, asking in UK web-based boating forums why people don't post to u.r.b.power, asking those who post to the US biased rec.boats why they don't post to uk.rec.boats.power. And without exception, every single person that expressed an opinion said that the name .power had put them off - they thought it was a racing group. Those that did subscribe did so because they couldn't find one that dealt with motor boats and it was that or nothing. Of course I now risk someone turning round and saying "that's rubbish, I like it the way it is" but that is what I have found since I first started looking into it around 8 months ago.

Of course, I accept responsibility since it was I that proposed the original group and came up with the .power name in 1998. But as they say, you can't be right 100% of the time (or any of the time according to my other half