Subject: news.groups.reviews guidelines
Supersedes: <ngrFAQ1995Sept27@eecs.umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 19:47:33 -0400
Summary: Please describe your favorite group or mailing list
.to grouprev+@pitt.edu.
.Please look for other groups in news.groups.questions.
Article-Names: news.groups.reviews:charter news.groups.questions:charter 

Version: 1995Oct05
Comment: The change was just in the archive-name.

The unmoderated group news.groups.questions is an appropriate 
place to ask (and answer) questions about newsgroups and mailing
lists, such as which topics are discussed where, and how to start, 
find, or create groups or mailing lists for specific interests.

The moderated group news.groups.reviews features reviews of 
other newsgroups and mailing lists.  You don't have to wait
until someone asks -- just go ahead and write a review of one
you like.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The most important thing to remember is that the people reading the
review probably haven't heard of your group or mailing list.  Tell
them why they would be interested.

Because many of the readers will still be new to netnews, it 
is important that the reviews contain enough information to
describe the group even to a newbie.  In general, I would
appreciate it if reviews followed these guidelines:

Reviews should be written by people who read and enjoy the group in
question.  If the reviewed group isn't worth reading, then ignorance
is indeed bliss.  

[Yes, it might feel good to write a negative review, but who
will it help?  Please remember that there are enough newsgroups 
that people won't be trying them all.  If they wander in on their
own, your review isn't going to discourage them, and if they
don't, why waste their time?]

Reviews should be one-time things.  In a year, it might be worth
reviewing again, but the group shouldn't change very much in a week.
For the same reason, I prefer reviews of groups that have been up
a few months -- it can take that long to know what the group will
really be like.

I will accept alternate reviews from different reviewers, if they
are substantially different, but I would prefer to review another
as-yet-unreviewed group.  news.groups.reviews will not be a
discussion forum, so it may be worth running your review by
other readers first -- particularly if it is a second review.
(Volume isn't a serious problem yet, but I don't want to surprise
anyone a year or two from now.)

Questions about "Where can I find a group about X?" should be sent
to news.groups.questions.  Discussion of the review should normally
take place in the reviewed group itself.  As these types of 
followups are very different, followups will normally come to
me by default.  

Reviews of (publicly accessible) mailing lists are encouraged, but
interested readers are also directed to the short summaries available
elsewhere.  If you would like one of these lists of lists, Stephanie da
Silva, arielle@taronga.com posts one to news.lists.  If it has expired
on your site, you can get it (e.g., by anonymous ftp to rtfm.mit.edu) from
/pub/usenet/news.lists/Publicly_Accessible_Mailing_Lists,_Part_*_14
where the "*" represents each of the numbers 1 through 14.  

[I am willing to add pointers to other lists of lists, if someone gives me 
step-by-step instructions for getting them.]

In your review, please try to express the flavor of the group as a
whole.  Ideally, this will involve summarizing some recent threads, 
so that potential readers will have an example as well as a description.

Reviews need not be restricted to the big 8 -- if the group is widely 
available (eg, bionet, or eunet) that is sufficient.  Reviewed mailing 
lists should be open to all readers without restriction.  (Note that
they need not be open to all posters; only to all readers.)

Here is a sample review, written by Vance Kochenderfer.
Note that the Description: line is copied straight from
/usr/lib/news/newsgroups, and the FAQ-Location: line is 
in URL format.  While not mandatory, this is certainly
encouraged.

Also note that if you don't give me the spare headers, I may post
them without, or I may procrastinate while planning to dig them up,
or, worst case, I may do both.

--------------------

Newsgroup: alt.folklore.urban
Moderator: none
Description: Urban legends, ala Jan Harold Brunvand
Keywords: urban legends, rumors, craig shergold
Related-Groups: alt.folklore.info,alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.college,
.alt.folklore.ghost-stories,alt.folklore.military,alt.folklore.science
FAQ-Location: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/folklore-faq
Reviewer: Vance Kochenderfer vkochend@nyx.cs.du.edu
Review-Date: 1 Jan 94

Have you ever wondered about that dying boy in England who wants get-well
cards?  Or about lick-and-stick tattoos laced with LSD?  Or about all of
those soda can tabs you've been donating for kidney patients?  Read a.f.u
and wonder no more.  This group is dedicated to discussing and often
debunking pervasive rumors and half-truths known collectively as urban
legends.  Humorous and informative, the group also talks about the works
of urban legend researchers such as Cecil Adams and Jan Harold Brunvand.
Posters often ask innocuous-looking questions in order to bait newbies, so
followup with care and read the FAQ list before posting; it is very wide-
ranging and will answer most of your questions.

=========
Mail questions and comments about this review to the reviewer, or
post them to alt.folklore.urban.  Ask about other groups in 
news.groups.questions.  Mail submissions, questions and comments 
about news.groups.reviews to grouprev+@pitt.edu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

If you would like to see other reviews, or even other attempts at
mapping the net, then check out the archives.

They should be reachable at http://www.pitt.edu/%7Egrouprev/index.html

If you find problems, please tell me as soon as possible so that I
can try to fix them.  [Note, if your client can't handle indirection,
you'll get a screen telling you to follow a link to _elsewhere_.  
Just do it, and everything will be fine.]

If you don't have a browser, you can send email to listproc@www0.cern.ch 
send URL in the body of the message, such as
send http://www.pitt.edu/%7Egrouprev/index.html


