Re: [gpsstash] Re: Do we want a usenet group? (RFD)
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Eric O'Connor wrote:
> Does anyone have a problem with.... > > alt.rec.seek > > This would initially be shared with similar hobbies until a sub-group > can reasonably be justified. > > Later we could add groups like: > > alt.rec.seek.cache > alt.rec.seek.confluence > alt.rec.seek.letterbox > > I'd go with alt.rec.gps, but that'll block usage by the letterbox > crowd and I'm kind of curious what they have to say.
I admit I earlier claimed ambivalence as to the name of the group, but how the heck is anyone ever going to find the group if it's called alt.rec.seek?
I looked for references to letterboxing in Google Groups and after eliminating apparent references to video formats, I got the following article counts. Obviously, this is not a perfect metric but it may be an instructive first approximation regarding where posts about the letterbox hobby seem to wind up:
FWIW, I was initially intrigued by the idea of alt.treasure.hunting, as it sounds pretty close to geocaching, but it seems to be primarily directed to the metal detector crowd, and it might attract people who are more interested in raiding caches for whatever might be valuable in them, instead of people more interested in the hunt itself or exchanging valuables.
I'm not sure it will be possible to come up with a sensible short name that would be attractive simultaneously to geocachers, letterboxers, and confluence hunters. It might be better to pick some name that works for the Geocachers (rec.geocaching, alt.geocaching, or the like) and just and then invite the letterboxers and confluence hounds every once in a while.