Nick wrote:
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

You seem to have a curious idea of demand! What we do not see is hordes of
people saying "Yes, this is a good idea, I will subscribe". If you really
thought that your potential audience was waiting (impatiently!) in
rec.boats, you should have included that group in the RFD.
--
John Briggs