Nick wrote:
In article , Andrew Hodgson
writes

1. Create a new unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.motor with the
following charter

Would there be any benefit in keeping both groups running - the power
group for power boat racing et al and the motor group for standard
motor boating?

Possibly, but I don't think there would be enough traffic on .power
(currently around 10 posts per week give or take a few) - hence the
rename request in the first place! Racing etc could be discussed in
.motor (allowed in the charter) until such time as the amount of traffic
warrantied a new group and then following the big 8 format, it would be
uk.rec.boats.racing.power, uk.rec.boats.racing.dingy, uk.rec.waterski
etc.

Of course the charter of .power could be changed to avoid confusion. I
don't know if it would do any harm to leave it be with a new charter??

Just my thoughts...

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

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

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

Nick wrote:

||||| large snip

|| 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.

Although you didn't ask me, I am one of those as you describe. I've been
involved with motor boating (in one way or another) for many years, but the
"power" in the NG name put me off - images of mega-horsepower single-purpose
craft and b*lls-out racing. To a UK English speaker, "powerboating" and
"motorboating" are very different things. It was a while before I started
reading the group and realised there were a lot of people like me -
cruising, fishing, amateur mechanics etc. The traffic is disappointingly
light, but I'm not surprised if my approach was typical. Only one way to
find out...

I support the proposal.


--


===============================
Rich
Tiggrr - V8 trialler
RR 4.6HSE

Nick wrote:

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.

As far as I am concerned, you are right. I'm sure folks see the word
"power" in the title, and straight away think racing boats. So, they
look for another group.

I'd say a name change would be beneficial.