netnews@wnuxb.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (01/17/85)
First, let me say that I am in basic agreement with Lauren and Mark (Horton) on the needs for moderation, the economics of distributing trash, and several other matters that don't occur to me just now. Last night I was thinking about how new newsgroups are created in the current USENET. It seems to be something like this: 1) Someone suggests the need for a newsgroup to discuss FOOBAR. 2) Someone else says that since there has never been much discussion of FOOBAR, that no new group is needed. 3) People start posting FOOBAR messages to inappropriate groups or "trash" groups like net.misc, net.general, etc. 4) Someone suggests the need for a newsgroup to discuss FOOBAR. 5) net.FOOBAR is created (after some N days of discussion). Now then, what may happen with a fully moderated stargate distribution (which I favor)? Here's one scenario: 1) Someone sends an article to the moderator for sat.news.groups suggesting the need for a newsgroup to discuss FOOBAR. 2) Moderator posts the message to sat.news.groups. The groundrules call for "votes" to be sent either to him/her or to the original suggester (doesn't matter much). 3) People send "votes" saying that since there has never been much discussion of FOOBAR, that no new group is needed. 4) People start trying to post FOOBAR messages to inappropriate groups, where they are rejected by the moderators. 5) Discussions concerning FOOBAR never start. Looking at the above, it appears that my scenario has as its problem, the "there has to be discussion before a group is needed" problem. There are probably other problems involved, as well. Any thoughts on how new newsgroups might get "off the ground" :-)? -- Ronald W. Heiby AT&T Something (used to be Comp Sys Div, but don't ask me now.), Inc. Lisle, IL (CU-D21) / ...!ihnp4!wnuxa!heiby or ...!ihnp4!wnuxb!netnews
perelgut@utai.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (01/18/85)
> First, let me say that I am in basic agreement with Lauren and Mark (Horton) > on the needs for moderation, the economics of distributing trash, and several > other matters that don't occur to me just now. > > Last night I was thinking about how new newsgroups are created ... > > ... Any thoughts on how new newsgroups might get "off the ground" :-)? > -- > Ronald W. Heiby I would hope that there would be a stargate.misc group for initial discussions. Really stupid topics and redunant comments (like this one probably is) would be "moderated" into the void. But opening salvos should go relatively untouched no matter how "dumb" they seem at first. -- Stephen Perelgut Computer Systems Research Institute, Univ. of Toronto USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!utcsrgv!utai!perelgut CSNET: perelgut@Toronto
thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (01/18/85)
In article <354@wnuxb.UUCP> netnews@wnuxb.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: >Now then, what may happen with a fully moderated stargate distribution >(which I favor)? Here's one scenario: > 1) Someone sends an article to the moderator for sat.news.groups > suggesting the need for a newsgroup to discuss FOOBAR. > 2) Moderator posts the message to sat.news.groups. The groundrules > call for "votes" to be sent either to him/her or to the > original suggester (doesn't matter much). > 3) People send "votes" saying that since there has never been > much discussion of FOOBAR, that no new group is needed. > 4) People start trying to post FOOBAR messages to inappropriate > groups, where they are rejected by the moderators. > 5) Discussions concerning FOOBAR never start. The way it works on the Arpanet, which has NO formal mechanism for setting up a new mailing list (sort of equivalent to a newsgroup, but it comes to your personal mailbox), is that someone says "Gee, I think I'll start a mailing list about <foo>", and posts a message on either a related list, or to the arpanet equivalent of net.general, saying "I'm starting a mailing list about <foo>, all those interested, send me your net address." So a lot of people send him their net address, and then people start mailing messages (or don't) to the new list. If traffic grows too big, then someone (often not the original person who started the list) moderates it. If there's no traffic, then nothing happens. So, an equivalent scenario for stargate newsgroups might be 1) Someone decides he wants a group about <foo>. He finds out from the "stargate administrator" how to become a moderator. 2) He sends out a message to sat.news.group saying that the new group exists, and that he is moderating it. 3) If no traffic occurs, he loses interest, and the group goes away. 4) If too much traffic occurs, and he runs out of time, he either a) finds someone else to moderate the group b) gets further and further behind, incurring the wrath of posters, until someone else volunteers to moderate the group c) posts a rmgroup message. (Please note: "he" above means "he, she, or it", as the case may be.) Another scenario is to wait until discussion develops in a net.* group, then find a moderator and start broadcasting it over sat.*. -- =Spencer ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!thomas, thomas@utah-cs.ARPA) <<< Silly quote of the week >>>
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (01/19/85)
> 3) People send "votes" saying that since there has never been > much discussion of FOOBAR, that no new group is needed. > 4) People start trying to post FOOBAR messages to inappropriate > groups, where they are rejected by the moderators. > 5) Discussions concerning FOOBAR never start. > > Any thoughts on how new newsgroups might get "off the ground" :-)? > -- > Ronald W. Heiby ...!ihnp4!wnuxa!heiby or ...!ihnp4!wnuxb!netnews Sinple; all the moderators know a new group was just turned down for lack of interest. Instead of just rejecting things which really should have been in that group, just forward them to the moderator of star.net.newgroups; if enough come in, count that as a belated 'yes' vote and form the group. -- {allegra,seismo}!vax135!timeinc\ cmcl2!rocky2!cubsvax>!phri!roy (Roy Smith) ihnp4!timeinc/ The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Public Health Research Institute.