Irene Waters  wrote: 
 > wrote 
 >> 
 >> In news.groups Irene  wrote: 
  
 >> >Bonds are one of several popular investment vehicles. Consumers typically 
 >> >buy them to reduce the volatility of portfolios. Following the descent of 
 >> >stock market indices after 2000 and subsequent unprecedented changes in 
 >> >interest rates, bond discussion has increased in the media and on Usenet. 
 >> >Yet none of the 10 misc.invest newsgroups currently available is 
 >dedicated 
 >> >to bonds. 
 >> 
 >> That begs the questions, "do bonds get discussed in those groups?", 
 >> or, "what's wrong with discussing bonds in those groups?"  What 
 >> are the main groups this topic gets discussed? 
 [snip list] 
  
 >The problem, based strictly on anecdotal observation and, inevitably, some 
 >subjectivity: Most regular participants in each of the above groups are 
 >specialized in the particular investment vehicle. When someone wants to ask 
 >a question about bonds, he or she typically goes to one of these groups and 
 >gets an answer that may reflect (1) bias; or (2) lack of study on bonds. If 
 >the expertise can be directed to a single group so that it's not so dilute 
 >by biased posters and posters with minimal expertise, then consumers with 
 >questions will be more likely to get a collection of "expert" responses from 
 >which an optimal answer may be derived. 
  
 It wouldn't hurt to include the above in your next draft of the RFD. 
  
 >> How much of the 
 >> discussion involves bonds? 
  
 >Do you mean what fraction of the total posts at each group involves bonds? 
  
 Both in terms of absolute and relative quantities.  Estimates, of course. 
  
 >I'm not sure how this is meaningful.  If it's a large fraction for, say, 
 >misc.invest.stocks, what is the signficance of this? If it's a small 
 >fraction, same question. Also, suppose it is a small fraction, but the total 
 >number of posts to misc.invest.stocks is high. This means this group is 
 >getting a lot of bond posts. On the other hand, suppose for 
 >misc.invest.technical, it is a large fraction, but the total number of posts 
 >to misc.invest.technical is low. Etc. 
  
 The relevance comes from the degree of usage.  If a particular 
 subtopic starts to overwhelm the other subtopics, particularly, 
 becoming a burden, then that can be an indication for a need 
 for change (i.e. a new subgroup). 
  
 Really, the bottom line (for better rationales) is how much readers 
 feel the need for a new group, and why they feel the group is or 
 is not needed.  The lack of centralization, or of the existence, of a 
 topic that is discussed widely is a bit weaker (possibly a lot 
 weaker) if you don't know if the readers feel there is significant 
 improvement that would come from a proposed related group.  It's 
 all about the readers and what they want. 
  
 >> Will the new group pull bond discussions 
 >> out of those groups (and into the new group), or will it just be 
 >> another group to crosspost to most of the time? 
  
 >I can only speculate that eventually regulars at these groups would start 
 >steering bond questions over to the new misc.invest.bonds. 
  
 You mean you haven't asked them yet? 
  
 >> Are there perhaps 
 >> too many financial groups already? 
  
 >For the last three months, groups.google yields the following total numbers 
 >of posts for each newsgroup: 
  
 >misc.invest.marketplace: 122 
 >misc.invest.misc: 374 
 >misc.invest.technical: 924 
 >misc.invest.canada: 394 
 >misc.invest.financial-plan: 603 
 >misc.invest.futures: 1250 
 >misc.invest.mutual-funds: 2630 
 >misc.invest.options: 1100 
 >misc.invest.real-estate: 1960 
 >misc.invest.stocks: 27800 
  
 >Six of ten pass the 'at least 10 posts per day' criterion for establishing a 
 >new newsgroup, assuming all posts are on topic (which might be a stretch). 
 >So by this crude measure anyway, I think there's a fair argument that there 
 >are not too many misc.invest newsgroups. 
  
 Um, I highly unrecommend trying to create a new group from a group 
 that has ONLY 10 postings per day.  For an alt.* group perhaps, but 
 not a Big-8 group.  For rec.* groups, for example, I would recommend 
 thinking about a split for groups above 50 postings per day, and 
 question the need for new groups from groups with 25 - 50 per day. 
 I'm not sure I would recommend differently in the other Big-8 
 groups.  Most of the groups above don't even meet the 25-50 per day 
 criterion. 
  
 [snip] 
 >> When you say "may arise", does that mean they haven't already 
 >> arisen elsewhere? 
  
 >"may arise" = "are allowed to be raised at misc.invest.bonds" 
  
 >Otherwise, I don't understand your question. 
  
 "may arise" can also be read "possibly arise" implying something 
 that hasn't happened yet (somewhere).  It's better to mention 
 topics that appear typically in existing groups than to indicate 
 hyptheticals (which is how that read). 
  
 >> >A dedicated bonds newsgroup would assist consumers in making intelligent 
 >> >investment choices via the diversity of viewpoints, expertise, and 
 >extensive 
 >> >open debate that such a public forum provides. Through the transfer of 
 >> >legitimate information, it would also assist in keeping financial markets 
 >> >free. 
 >> 
 >> But do these people want a new group?  How much support do you 
 >> have? 
  
 >To both: This remains to be seen. I am working on support. I am aware some 
 >effort will have to come from me to drum it up. 
  
 It's too late to tell you now, but for other prospective proponents, 
 it is highly recommended that one works on support BEFORE submitting 
 the RFD.  There are at least two reasons.  1) you get feedback from 
 the intended readers that can help better define a group and, more 
 importantly, improve the proposal.  2) It can be difficult finding 
 the necessary support (especially if there is significant opposition); 
 campaigning during RFD is fine, but it is frowned upon during the 
 vote, so STARTING on support during the RFD can be too late for 
 some proposals. 
  
 >I proposed this based on reading a few of the misc.invest newsgroups and 
 >seeing a lot of newby bond investors come ask questions at them. 
  
 You need feedback.  You'll get some now, but it would have been more 
 help to you had you solicited feedback before the RFD. 
  
 >> >CHARTER: misc.invest.bonds 
 >> 
 >> >misc.invest.bonds is a place to post about and discuss bonds. Since 
 >> 
 >> Should you write "discuss investment bonds"? 
  
 >I agree that's cleaner, but it omits the poster who just wants to post an 
 >informational point and does not want to discuss it. 
  
 No, I mean changing "bonds" to "investment bonds".  The rest of 
 the sentence is fine.  Apart from being pedantic, it could help 
 someone doing a search if they think of tagging key phrases like that. 
  
 >> >investment is often a weighing of choices, comparison of bonds to other 
 >> >investment vehicles is appropriate. 
 >> 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)