In article <2658 at fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov>
toms at fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) writes:
> Instead of
> 0. bionet.help
> which I agree is ambiguous, how about:
> 1. bionet.net-questions
> 2. bionet.bionet-help
> 3. bionet.bionet-questions
> I think #2 might be best, but naive (ie, new people) should be consulted
> to find out.
How about two more:
4. bionet.network-help
5. bionet.newusers
I suggest this only because the first three do not clearly distinguish
at a glance (for me) between help about bionet groups vs help on
a scientific problem. If I had to choose between the first three it
would be #1 because it suggests for me questions about the organization
of the bionet groups rather than the science supported by the groups.
I can imagine at least one potential problem for "bionet.network-help".
Bionet readers might think it is a group only to ask questions about
hardware networking problems. It would be worse if other non-Bionet
readers also thought this and cluttered the group. I have a feeling
that there is not a simple name that can convey exactly what you want
but we can get close to it.
"bionet.newusers" has the advantage in advertising itself to new bionet
subscribers. If I didn't know anything about bionet that is probably
the first place I would look.
More thoughts?
-= Stephen Klautky =- AGOODRID at VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
