|
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy: rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor Newsgroup line: uk.boats.motor All aspects of motor boating in the UK *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG *** *** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.REC.BOATS.POWER *** This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Further procedural details are given below. RATIONALE: uk.boats.motor Prior to 1998 there were no newsgroups covering powered boats in the UK. Sailing was covered by uk.rec.sailing, whilst uk.rec.waterways dealt with waterways in general. Motor cruisers, sports boats, speed boats and in fact any powered craft were not covered by any UK newsgroup. As a result, uk.rec.boats.power was created in August 1998. However, since it's creation the number of posts has been rather small compared with uk.rec.sailing, especially considering the approximate 50-50 split between power and sail in the UK. Comments by regular and new participants indicate that the name was a poor choice - power seems to imply racing or high performance craft. "Motor" is more of a generic term which would attract the users that were the intended audience of uk.rec.boats.power in the first instance. Hence the request to rename uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor PROPOSAL (to be activated in two stages) 1. Create a new unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.motor with the following charter CHARTER: uk.boats.motor uk.rec.boats.motor will discuss motor boating in UK waters and the activities of UK motor boaters elsewhere. Motor boat sports (eg racing and water skiing) are valid topics except where covered by a more specific group. Advertising Advertising is forbidden, with these exceptions: Suppliers of goods and services relevant to Motor Boats in the UK may post an invitation to visit their web site or request details. It should be of four lines or fewer and not posted more than once every 3 months. The subject line should begin "ADVERT: ". Private adverts are welcome but must not exceed one post per subject or user per week. Binaries & Formatting Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a pointer may be posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where authentication is important and should be as short as possible. Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make some common newsreaders comply with this, read http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html. END CHARTER 2. Remove existing unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power, this to be delayed at the discretion of Control until the bulk of discussion has moved to the new group. PROCEDU This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10 days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce (i.e. until December 22nd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens. This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce. Please refer to this document if you have any questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce uk.net.news.config uk.rec.boats.power Proponent: Nick Smeltzer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 5.0i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBP9ivIGOfGXkh8vHZAQEpcgP/ZNHoprPo3ZMwlI3bRAdvDr5/bDixodeR bm2Rgm1/y/eruXA0naugq+RvmUIcHzCAVrOO3T7u5CieHyDdZ+F3Ge1HI1kU +oAH c6eqgRBsQPulK7QEiXyuLf+ebI7q2M82as6GljDNYc9Dbgcwl1 cnCxRaKNVWZHKX 9zpKrOSU6LA= =iXTK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:53:16 +0000, Nick Smeltzer
wrote: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy: rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor [...] RATIONALE: uk.boats.motor [...] However, since it's creation the number of posts has been rather small compared with uk.rec.sailing, especially considering the approximate 50-50 split between power and sail in the UK. Comments by regular and new participants indicate that the name was a poor choice - power seems to imply racing or high performance craft. "Motor" is more of a generic term which would attract the users that were the intended audience of uk.rec.boats.power in the first instance. Hence the request to rename uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor PROPOSAL (to be activated in two stages) 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? Andrew. |
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
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... -- Nick-s @ blueyonder . co . uk |
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:53:16 +0000, Nick Smeltzer
wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy: rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor Newsgroup line: uk.boats.motor All aspects of motor boating in the UK *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG *** *** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.REC.BOATS.POWER *** This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Further procedural details are given below. RATIONALE: uk.boats.motor Prior to 1998 there were no newsgroups covering powered boats in the UK. Sailing was covered by uk.rec.sailing, whilst uk.rec.waterways dealt with waterways in general. Motor cruisers, sports boats, speed boats and in fact any powered craft were not covered by any UK newsgroup. As a result, uk.rec.boats.power was created in August 1998. However, since it's creation the number of posts has been rather small compared with uk.rec.sailing, especially considering the approximate 50-50 split between power and sail in the UK. Comments by regular and new participants indicate that the name was a poor choice - power seems to imply racing or high performance craft. "Motor" is more of a generic term which would attract the users that were the intended audience of uk.rec.boats.power in the first instance. Hence the request to rename uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor You talk about attracting the intended audience. That seems entirely backwards to me. Is there a subset of motor boaters who feel they don't have a group to post to? What sort of motor boats are we talking here? As an owner of a motor boat (specifically a canal narrowboat), I certainly don't feel a need for a group, and indeed would oppose such a move on the basis that it might detract from uk.rec.waterways. Why was this RFD not crossposted to uk.rec.waterways? -- Dave Mayall |
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
"Nick Smeltzer" wrote in message ... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy: rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor Newsgroup line: uk.boats.motor All aspects of motor boating in the UK *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG *** *** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.REC.BOATS.POWER *** This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Further procedural details are given below. RATIONALE: uk.boats.motor Prior to 1998 there were no newsgroups covering powered boats in the UK. Sailing was covered by uk.rec.sailing, whilst uk.rec.waterways dealt with waterways in general. Motor cruisers, sports boats, speed boats and in fact any powered craft were not covered by any UK newsgroup. As a result, uk.rec.boats.power was created in August 1998. However, since it's creation the number of posts has been rather small compared with uk.rec.sailing, especially considering the approximate 50-50 split between power and sail in the UK. Comments by regular and new participants indicate that the name was a poor choice - power seems to imply racing or high performance craft. "Motor" is more of a generic term which would attract the users that were the intended audience of uk.rec.boats.power in the first instance. Hence the request to rename uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor PROPOSAL (to be activated in two stages) 1. Create a new unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.motor with the following charter CHARTER: uk.boats.motor uk.rec.boats.motor will discuss motor boating in UK waters and the activities of UK motor boaters elsewhere. Motor boat sports (eg racing and water skiing) are valid topics except where covered by a more specific group. Advertising Advertising is forbidden, with these exceptions: Suppliers of goods and services relevant to Motor Boats in the UK may post an invitation to visit their web site or request details. It should be of four lines or fewer and not posted more than once every 3 months. The subject line should begin "ADVERT: ". Private adverts are welcome but must not exceed one post per subject or user per week. Binaries & Formatting Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a pointer may be posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where authentication is important and should be as short as possible. Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make some common newsreaders comply with this, read http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html. END CHARTER 2. Remove existing unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power, this to be delayed at the discretion of Control until the bulk of discussion has moved to the new group. PROCEDU This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10 days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce (i.e. until December 22nd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens. This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce. Please refer to this document if you have any questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce uk.net.news.config uk.rec.boats.power Proponent: Nick Smeltzer I'm not a boater, but occassionally I visit some boating group to ask a question. I thought uk.rec.boats.power was only for people who raced boats, as in power-boat racing. So, from my point of view, I think a change would be beneficial. |
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
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 |
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
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:) |
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
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 |
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
|
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
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 |
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
|
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
What about inflicting a speed limit on this ng????
If so, what speed? 4mph limits it to canals and very slow fishing boats... 8mph limits it to the above and river navigations, and slightly faster fishing boats... Anything more is imaginary, surely????? I mean what moron would want to GO that fast in a boat???? Tony sedately on the Basy [I'm not serious, Mike...by the Wey!] |
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
In article ,
wrote: Most motor boat owners post to uk.rec.waterways. Most don't post at all :-) Only a tiny percentage of boat owners use inland waterways but aIui that group is not really a boating group. uk.rec.boats.power has never had much traffic. Not too bad, a relatively quiet, steady group is more use than a 1000 a day rantfest. It ain't broke. Cheerio, -- |
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
Fine idea, it makes the group sound more broad based 'power' suggests racing
etc. where as 'motor' could cover every aspect of powered boating, if anyone wanted a specific boat racing site then they could set one up. Anything that attracts more posts is a good idea. My two penneth ! Cheers Martin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy: rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor Newsgroup line: uk.boats.motor All aspects of motor boating in the UK *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG *** *** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.REC.BOATS.POWER *** This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Further procedural details are given below. RATIONALE: uk.boats.motor Prior to 1998 there were no newsgroups covering powered boats in the UK. Sailing was covered by uk.rec.sailing, whilst uk.rec.waterways dealt with waterways in general. Motor cruisers, sports boats, speed boats and in fact any powered craft were not covered by any UK newsgroup. As a result, uk.rec.boats.power was created in August 1998. However, since it's creation the number of posts has been rather small compared with uk.rec.sailing, especially considering the approximate 50-50 split between power and sail in the UK. Comments by regular and new participants indicate that the name was a poor choice - power seems to imply racing or high performance craft. "Motor" is more of a generic term which would attract the users that were the intended audience of uk.rec.boats.power in the first instance. Hence the request to rename uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor PROPOSAL (to be activated in two stages) 1. Create a new unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.motor with the following charter CHARTER: uk.boats.motor uk.rec.boats.motor will discuss motor boating in UK waters and the activities of UK motor boaters elsewhere. Motor boat sports (eg racing and water skiing) are valid topics except where covered by a more specific group. Advertising Advertising is forbidden, with these exceptions: Suppliers of goods and services relevant to Motor Boats in the UK may post an invitation to visit their web site or request details. It should be of four lines or fewer and not posted more than once every 3 months. The subject line should begin "ADVERT: ". Private adverts are welcome but must not exceed one post per subject or user per week. Binaries & Formatting Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a pointer may be posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP) may be used where authentication is important and should be as short as possible. Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make some common newsreaders comply with this, read http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html. END CHARTER 2. Remove existing unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power, this to be delayed at the discretion of Control until the bulk of discussion has moved to the new group. PROCEDU This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10 days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce (i.e. until December 22nd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens. This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce. Please refer to this document if you have any questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce uk.net.news.config uk.rec.boats.power Proponent: Nick Smeltzer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:07:55 -0800, Adrian Stott wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:48:43 +0100, wrote: On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:55:16 +0000, "Derek.Moody" wrote: In article , Richard wrote: "Nick Smeltzer" wrote in message ... rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor Newsgroup line: uk.boats.motor All aspects of motor boating in the UK I thought uk.rec.boats.power was only for people who raced boats, as in power-boat racing. So, from my point of view, I think a change would be beneficial. Imo 'Power' implies a motive force other than muscles or nature. In other words some sort of motor. The speed generated is immaterial. So while I see no need for a change I won't object - but it feels like pointless meddling. Most motor boat owners post to uk.rec.waterways. uk.rec.boats.power has never had much traffic. uk.rec.waterways isn't the most obvious name for a boat group, yet many boat owners use it. Changing the name won't add to the traffic. I don't see a need for further fragmentation of the uk.rec. boat groups. As a subscriber to uk.rec.waterways, may I comment on the above? "uk.rec.waterways" is the obvious name for a waterways group, which is what the group in question is. In other words, it is concerned with inland navigation and navigations. It is not a boat group, although indeed a number of its subscribers are boat owners. Agreed. uk.rec.waterways is about 20% about boats, 15% about waterways history and features and 65% about how to configure microsoft newsreaders and avoid spam. At least, that's what it feels like. -- On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) |
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
"Dave Mayall" wrote in message ine.co.uk... On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:53:16 +0000, Nick Smeltzer wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy: rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor Newsgroup line: uk.boats.motor All aspects of motor boating in the UK *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG *** *** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.REC.BOATS.POWER *** This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Further procedural details are given below. RATIONALE: uk.boats.motor Prior to 1998 there were no newsgroups covering powered boats in the UK. Sailing was covered by uk.rec.sailing, whilst uk.rec.waterways dealt with waterways in general. Motor cruisers, sports boats, speed boats and in fact any powered craft were not covered by any UK newsgroup. As a result, uk.rec.boats.power was created in August 1998. However, since it's creation the number of posts has been rather small compared with uk.rec.sailing, especially considering the approximate 50-50 split between power and sail in the UK. Comments by regular and new participants indicate that the name was a poor choice - power seems to imply racing or high performance craft. "Motor" is more of a generic term which would attract the users that were the intended audience of uk.rec.boats.power in the first instance. Hence the request to rename uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor You talk about attracting the intended audience. That seems entirely backwards to me. Is there a subset of motor boaters who feel they don't have a group to post to? What sort of motor boats are we talking here? As an owner of a motor boat (specifically a canal narrowboat), I certainly don't feel a need for a group, and indeed would oppose such a move on the basis that it might detract from uk.rec.waterways. Why was this RFD not crossposted to uk.rec.waterways? -- Dave Mayall I am also a canal boat owners, and we are very, very lucky in the way uk.rec.waterways supports us and all the other boaters who pop in to ask questions etc. However when I started getting into newsgroups (I have been professionally involved in river boating since the 1970s) I ignotre uk.rec.boats.power because the name certainly gave me the impression that the group was into Power Boats - which is not my scene or interest. It was many months ago that I raised this on the group & I thought it had died the death. I think it is a simple "tidying up" exersize, we have a group for sailing, we have a group who's name makes it clear is intended for everything to do with inland boating and waterways, we have a group who's name indicates it is interested in kidies boats (but actually is about canoing), and we have a group that has a name that has evidently put a number of people off looking at it. I am sure this was never intentional, but it appears to have happened. I do not see any "downside" to the proposal and it might even produce more interest over time if acted upon. If traffic indicates a need fopr a Power Boat group in time, so be it. Tony Brooks, who will continue to monitor Sailing, Power, and Waterways - whatever they are called. |
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:50:13 +0000, Nick Atty wrote:
snip "uk.rec.waterways" is the obvious name for a waterways group, which is what the group in question is. In other words, it is concerned with inland navigation and navigations. It is not a boat group, although indeed a number of its subscribers are boat owners. Agreed. uk.rec.waterways is about 20% about boats, 15% about waterways history and features and 65% about how to configure microsoft newsreaders and avoid spam. At least, that's what it feels like. I reckon 5% about boats, 30% about waterways, 65% chatter....... I have to say that I'd never looked at uk.rec.boats.power until this RFD - assuming that it related solely to powerboats - but personally I would welcome a group with a focus on the technical/mechanical aspects of motorboats in general. The proposed charter for uk.rec.boats.motor does not seem to provide this specifically, however having looked at a recent snapshot of postings to u.r.b.p, I can see the rationale behind the proposed name change and would support it as being a more appropriate name for the group. IMO the name change is likely to have the effect hoped for by the proponent. -- Andy Clarke Boat Safety Scheme Examinations and narrowboat repairs Oxford Canal based. Mobile: 07860 577480 |
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
Most motor boat owners post to uk.rec.waterways.
Most don't post at all :-) So what? You could say that about any interest group. Only a tiny percentage of boat owners use inland waterways Only a tiny proportion of those with internet access use news groups. Again, so what? Try making a point that makes sense. group is not really a boating group. It's a waterways group used by a large number boat owners and boaters of all persuasions. I don't have a narrow boat or even a motor boat, but I still find it one of the best boat groups in the world. I have a motor boat, and the use of "inland waterways" put me off that group, much as "power" put others off this one. If "inland" is one of the best boat groups in the world then stay there. only slightly greater than zero most days. Doh - I thought that was the point of the proposed change? It ain't broke. and if it aint used, what's the point of renaming it? It is broke. Change the name. Mike |
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
In article
"Nick Atty" writes: [45 lines, only two of which were relevant to the reply, snipped] Agreed. uk.rec.waterways is about 20% about boats, 15% about waterways history and features and 65% about how to configure microsoft newsreaders and avoid spam. At least, that's what it feels like. Pity that you haven't learnt How To Trim from that 65% of content. (OTOH, at least you didn't top-post, unlike some other respondents in this thread.) -- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 |
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
In . co.uk Dave Mayall writes:
As an owner of a motor boat (specifically a canal narrowboat), I certainly don't feel a need for a group, and indeed would oppose such a move on the basis that it might detract from uk.rec.waterways. Why was this RFD not crossposted to uk.rec.waterways? Since the remit of the proposed uk.rec.boats.motor is broadly the same as for the present uk.rec.boats.power, then in principle its effect on uk.rec.waterways should be minimal. In practice, I grant you that a more active motor boat group would have some effect on u.r.w, and many topics might be acceptable on both. But it is clear that much and even most usage of motor boats takes place on open waters. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 |
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
"Charles Lindsey" wrote in message ... In . co.uk Dave Mayall writes: As an owner of a motor boat (specifically a canal narrowboat), I certainly don't feel a need for a group, and indeed would oppose such a move on the basis that it might detract from uk.rec.waterways. Why was this RFD not crossposted to uk.rec.waterways? Since the remit of the proposed uk.rec.boats.motor is broadly the same as for the present uk.rec.boats.power, then in principle its effect on uk.rec.waterways should be minimal. Utter tosh. The whole aim of this RFD is to modify the name so as to encourage those who would use urw to talk about their boats to use this group instead. In practice, I grant you that a more active motor boat group would have some effect on u.r.w, and many topics might be acceptable on both. But it is clear that much and even most usage of motor boats takes place on open waters. No it isn't. It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of people who talk about their motor boats on-line are users of the inland waterways. |
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
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. |
RFD: RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
|
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
"Nick Atty" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:07:55 -0800, Adrian Stott wrote: On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:48:43 +0100, wrote: On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:55:16 +0000, "Derek.Moody" wrote: In article , Richard wrote: "Nick Smeltzer" wrote in message ... rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor Newsgroup line: uk.boats.motor All aspects of motor boating in the UK I thought uk.rec.boats.power was only for people who raced boats, as in power-boat racing. So, from my point of view, I think a change would be beneficial. Imo 'Power' implies a motive force other than muscles or nature. In other words some sort of motor. The speed generated is immaterial. So while I see no need for a change I won't object - but it feels like pointless meddling. Most motor boat owners post to uk.rec.waterways. uk.rec.boats.power has never had much traffic. uk.rec.waterways isn't the most obvious name for a boat group, yet many boat owners use it. Changing the name won't add to the traffic. I don't see a need for further fragmentation of the uk.rec. boat groups. As a subscriber to uk.rec.waterways, may I comment on the above? "uk.rec.waterways" is the obvious name for a waterways group, which is what the group in question is. In other words, it is concerned with inland navigation and navigations. It is not a boat group, although indeed a number of its subscribers are boat owners. Agreed. uk.rec.waterways is about 20% about boats, 15% about waterways history and features and 65% about how to configure microsoft newsreaders and avoid spam. At least, that's what it feels like. -- On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) Yes. A good idea. This group is seriously under used |
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
|
RENAME uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com