r.p.d.zlr

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Feb 4, 2008.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a year ago but today it appears to be abandoned.  Does anybody know what happened to it?
     
    measekite, Feb 4, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    Withering away due to too low signal-to-noise and too high discourtesy,
    like the rest of Usenet.
     
    John Navas, Feb 4, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    Please post in plain text only (per Usenet guidelines).
    Not all newsreaders can handle HTML. Thanks.
    Easy to change in your Thunderbird Options.
     
    John Navas, Feb 4, 2008
    #3
  4. measekite

    Guest Guest

    On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:03:09 GMT, measekite wrote:
    <<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    <<html>
    <<head>
    <</head>
    <<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    <<font face="sans-serif">The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a
    << year ago but today it appears to be abandoned.&nbsp; Does anybody
    <<know what happened to it?<<br>
    <</font>
    <</body>
    <</html>

    Probably died from folks inappropriately posting in HTML!
     
    Guest, Feb 4, 2008
    #4
  5. measekite

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    PLease take your html into my killfile.
     
    Neil Ellwood, Feb 4, 2008
    #5
  6. measekite

    TH O Guest

    Too high discourtesy ... you mean like the original poster/troll who
    refuses to stop posting HTML posts?
     
    TH O, Feb 4, 2008
    #6
  7. measekite

    Tom Hise Guest

    It was a stupid idea when they created the group. There was never any need
    for any of the rec.photo.digital.* groups. The group, r.p.d.zlr is almost
    as stupid as posting in HTML.
     
    Tom Hise, Feb 4, 2008
    #7
  8. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    That's part of it, but the personal name calling and flaming is a much
    bigger part.
     
    John Navas, Feb 4, 2008
    #8
  9. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    It presumably passed the formal approval process, so a large majority
    seemed to favor it.
     
    John Navas, Feb 4, 2008
    #9
  10. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    What I suspect happened is that all the noise and discourtesy drove away
    those that were interested in using it. I can well understand that --
    I find myself less and less interested in Usenet, and more inclined to
    use other forums that have higher signal-to-noise and less discourtesy.
     
    John Navas, Feb 4, 2008
    #10
  11. measekite

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Current camera makers and dealers just don't use the term ZLR. (I think
    Olympus once used it as a marketing catch phrase for a couple of their
    models).

    Adorama and B&H don't categorize any of their cameras as 'ZLR'.
    Out of curiosity, I just did a search on ebay.com for ZLR and see that
    out of all the cameras for sale there, only *one* camera described as
    such.

    Since the term is rarely used, most people have no idea what a ZLR is.
    It's not hard to see why rec.photo.digital.zlr isn't that popular.
     
    Jim Townsend, Feb 5, 2008
    #11
  12. measekite

    John Bean Guest

    And ironically they were actual SLR cameras with a fized
    zoom, not the non-reflex EVF cameras that this group was
    intended to represent.

    Several of us made this point during the discussion period
    but the proponant wouldn't shift from the (inaccurate) ZLR
    name.

    Time has demonstrated why some of us disagreed with the
    choice and tried to get the name changed...
    Exactly :-(
     
    John Bean, Feb 5, 2008
    #12
  13. measekite

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Creating such a newsgroup was a stupid idea from the very beginning.

    Actually also these newsgroup are essentially dead:
    rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
    rec.photo.digital.rengefinder

    rec.photo.digital.slr-systems has traffic, but is essentially useless,
    because lots of posts in this newsgroup (perhaps most?) are also made to
    rec.photo.digital.

    We could in fact close all these r.p.d.* subgroups and revert to the
    situation we had before.
    Personally I don't have the time to follow more than one international
    digital photography newsgroup.
     
    Alfred Molon, Feb 5, 2008
    #13
  14. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    You can't close a Big Eight newsgroup once it's been created.
     
    John Navas, Feb 5, 2008
    #14
  15. measekite

    Helge Nareid Guest

    Yep - that one was a particularly bad idea, I tried arguing against it
    at the time, but the proponent just wouldn't listen.

    r.p.d.point+shoot is too ill defined to be particularly useful.

    r.p.d.rangefinder is well-defined as such, but covers such a miniscule
    portion of the total that it is not viable.

    The problem with all those three groups is that the vote for them were
    all piggybacked on the rec.photo.digital.slr-systems vote, which just
    about everybody considered worthwhile, and thus gained a completely
    unmerited number of "yes" votes by association.

    If people would refrain from cross-posting, _both_ the
    r.p.d.slr-systems group and this group would be more readable. If
    people could also stop inappropriate cross-posts to
    rec.photo.equipment.35mm, it would be even better for readers of all 3
    groups - even for those of us who read all of them.

    Well, it isn't too bad if you're using a newsreader which handles
    cross-posts appropriately. But refraining from unnecessary cross-posts
    would be much better.
    On the contrary, it is entirely possible. The problem is that some
    newsservers will not honour a group removal message, so old newsgroups
    are likely to linger as poorly propagated "ghost" groups on a number
    of servers.
     
    Helge Nareid, Feb 5, 2008
    #15
  16. Well, technically all it takes is a rmgroup, but of course many, many
    servers won't honor such a request.

    But whenever you split a group into sub-divisions it is customary to retire
    the root group, in this case "rec.photo.digital". And any traffic that
    doesn't fit into one of the more specific groups goes into the default
    *.misc which appears to be missing for the rec.photo.digital.*.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Feb 5, 2008
    #16
  17. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    I stand corrected. Thank you. Details in III of
    <http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:news_faq> and
    From the second link above:

    Jim Riley has done many studies showing that a very large number of
    newsgroups are abandoned. Removing groups through the rmgroup control
    message has not been done for many years. There are serious doubts
    about how much cooperation the B8MB will find from news
    administrators when and if such rmgroup control messages are sent.
    Nevertheless, the B8MB believes that it is in the interests of the
    Big-8 to remove unused and abandoned groups from the canonical list.

    We are looking for volunteers to serve on the Dead Groups Removal
    Task Force.
     
    John Navas, Feb 5, 2008
    #17
  18. measekite

    Alfred Molon Guest

    There is a lot of DLSR talk in r.p.d., which makes you wonder why a
    separate newsgroup for DSLRs is needed.
    As for the crossposting I'd guess people do so because they think that
    in r.p.d. they reach a broader audience.
     
    Alfred Molon, Feb 5, 2008
    #18
  19. Alfred Molon wrote:
    []
    Yes, to some extent it goes against the reason the other groups were set
    up, although the charters do allow cross-posting under restricted
    circumstances..

    As the available types of camera have changed, and the ZLR is no longer as
    distinct as it was (e.g. the Panasonic TZ3 has many of the capabilities of
    the earlier ZLRs but does not quite fit the group), and many of the
    earlier top-quality ZLRs have now been replaced with DSLRs at a cost and
    weight many more can afford, I would be quite happy to see either the
    point+shoot or the ZLR group be thought of and used as a "Small-sensor"
    group, again to try and improve the SNR on r.p.d.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 5, 2008
    #19
  20. measekite

    John Navas Guest

    Given that the population of compact digital cameras is many times that
    of dSLR cameras, it would seem to make more sense for dSLR posts to be
    confined to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, leaving rec.photo.digital for
    everything else, which would presumably be even more effective in
    improving SNR ratio here. It already exists and is properly named.
     
    John Navas, Feb 5, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.