Volume on RFC may seem imposing, Ms Leebee (at least these days), but there
are tools for selective reading: killfiling, marking of threads (depending
on your choice of newsreader program), etc.

Something else, much more important long-term to newsgroups, and which you
may or may not know of, is the regrettable history of people, often
well-intentioned and often indeed motivated by traffic volume, proposing
splits that fragmented or de-railed successful fora. This was a constant
issue in the early-mid 1990s especially, though it has happened throughout
the newsgroups' 25-year history. In cases I've witnessed, people convinced
of the wisdom of a split, and persuasive about it, often were relative
newcomers, and more importantly, they did not stay around to live with the
consequences of their inspiration. (That for instance is how the
longstanding wine newsgroup, created 1982, was mis-handled in 1993-94,
ending up rather carelessly in the "alt." hierarchy as alt.food.wine instead
of rec.food.drink.wine (a situation incidentally STILL shown misleadingly in
basic newsgroup descriptions that I see: rec.food.drink no longer carries
the wine postings, alt.food.wine does -- including from Australia). But the
impulse to spin off something to serve perceived needs created most of the
overlapping or competing or inactive or confusingly-defined newsgroups that
now exist.

As I mentioned in a history reflection on the wine group, the long view has
been in short supply.

-- Max