grr@cbmvax.UUCP (01/26/87)
In article <972@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: > >At a meeting of Usenet admins during USENIX, it was decided to start >the renaming of the mod.* groups. This means mod.amiga.sources will >become a comp group, but will still be moderated. > > It also means >that mod.amiga and comp.sys.amiga will be merged into comp.sys.amiga, >and will be moderated. ^^^^^^^^^ Since when? The last two times this confusion came up, I checked with the net.gods repsonsible for the various postings (Mark Horton and Rick Adams). They both indicated that the comp.sys.amiga group *was not* to be moderated. In previous postings, you idicated that it was your intent that the mod.amiga group was desired by many persons and that you hoped it would eventually replace the net.micro.amiga group (now comp.sys.amiga). The relativly small number of postings emitted from the moderated group (~50 total vs ~750/month) suggests to me that most of the users of this group prefer the unmoderated format. Now it is painfully obvious that comp.sys.amiga (like the other popular comp.sys groups) generate volume out of proportion to their readership. Perhaps a switch to the moderated format is the only netwide solution to this problem, but if so,then some discussion is indicated. There are alternatives, like getting the sources and binary groups working reliably so that that volume is not reflected here... Subjects: a) would you intend to be the moderator? b) how would you plan to handle the volume (this is several times that of the highest-volume moderated groups most of which are just echo groups for essentially unmoderated arpanet mailing lists). c) what provison for alternate moderators or alternate sites in case the moderator/site takes a powder for a time. d) what kind of turn-around would result for question / answer vollies? Now as a CBM person, with a massive conflict of interest in the whole thing, I'll shut up. But as one of the (unofficial) shepherds of the group, I feel that the issue deserves discussion rather than just simple notification of some (possible) netocratic fiat. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
mende@aramis.UUCP (01/26/87)
> [... lots of stuff about comp.sys.amiga being moderated deleted for > sake of the net and your eyes...] > Subjects: > > a) would you intend to be the moderator? At rutgers there are a few of us that have taken on the job of running the arpanet side of comp.sys.amiga, INFO-AMIGA. The first person to do this Eric Lavitsky. Eric had to stop moderating INFO-AMGIA do to his new job and other responsibility. After a long interium Eliot Lear took on this task. Eliot gets very bogged down with this work and has ask another person, me, to help him. In other words moderation (not just letting everything go through) takes more than one person. > b) how would you plan to handle the volume (this is several times that of > the highest-volume moderated groups most of which are just echo groups > for essentially unmoderated arpanet mailing lists). What we have been doing is re-formatting postings to 70 colums (ARPA restrictions) and removing articles that are non benificial for the general user. Also we have not been passing source code (have made some of it available via ftp) and doing just what the name implys, moderation. > c) what provison for alternate moderators or alternate sites in case the > moderator/site takes a powder for a time. We have none, I am sure I could do it if Eliot could not, but there is nothing official arraged. > d) what kind of turn-around would result for question / answer vollies? Expect at least one week from time of posting to time that it was seen. This is not too unrealistic considering the massive volume that comes in every day. > Now as a CBM person, with a massive conflict of interest in the whole thing, > I'll shut up. But as one of the (unofficial) shepherds of the group, I feel > that the issue deserves discussion rather than just simple notification of > some (possible) netocratic fiat. I have a few numbers on the time it takes to moderate this group. We spend approximatly 8-10 man hours per 100 articles. If anyone can expect to keep comp.sys.amiga active and up to date, then they have a truly full time job on their hands. Eliot and I have been spending more time that we should doing it. > George Robbins Bob Mende -- {Both Reality and this message are figments of my imagination} ARPA: mende@rutgers.edu BITNET: mende@zodiac.bitnet UUCP: {anywhere}!rutgers!mende Voice: Yo Bob will do.
perry@well.UUCP (01/27/87)
Sorry Bob, I just don't trust the moderated news group principle any more. NO TO A MODERATED AMIGA GROUP.
mende@aramis.UUCP (01/28/87)
From: perry@well.UUCP (Perry S. Kivolowitz) > Sorry Bob, I just don't trust the moderated news group principle any more. > NO TO A MODERATED AMIGA GROUP. If I did not make myself clear... I DO NOT WANT ONE EITHER!! I was telling everyone the impossiblity of moderating such a high volume group! Bob -- {Both Reality and this message are figments of my imagination} ARPA: mende@rutgers.edu BITNET: mende@zodiac.bitnet UUCP: {anywhere}!rutgers!mende Voice: Yo Bob will do.
woods@hao.UUCP (01/30/87)
In article <253@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> mende@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (Bob Mende) writes: > > I was >telling everyone the impossiblity of moderating such a high volume >group! The alternative may be that certain sites that have very high phone bills but few or no Amiga users may drop the group, thus limiting its distribution and therefore its usefulness. If you don't want such groups (and this is not to pick on Amiga; the same applies to Mac, PC, etc. source groups) to be moderated, then I would recommend coming up with some other ways of reducing volume to reasonable levels before the hammer falls. Personally, I don't think there are any, but I certainly welcome constructive suggestions. --Greg -- -- UUCP: {hplabs, seismo, nbires, noao}!hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA INTERNET: woods@hao.ucar.edu
jxc@rayssd.UUCP (01/30/87)
In article <2485@well.UUCP>, perry@well.UUCP (Perry S. Kivolowitz) writes: > > Sorry Bob, I just don't trust the moderated news group principle any more. > NO TO A MODERATED AMIGA GROUP. I will second that! Need an example? How about all the great programs we've all gotten out of mod.sources.amiga the last few months!! :-( ______________________________________________________________ | Jeffrey Jay Clesius, Raytheon Submarine Signal Division | | 1847 West Main Road, Mail Stop 188 | | Portsmouth, RI 02871-1087 (401) 847-8000 (X4015) | | { allegra | gatech | mirror | raybed2 } -----\ | | { linus | ihnp4 | uiucdcs } --------------->!rayssd!jxc | |______________________________________________________________|
mwm@eris.UUCP (01/30/87)
In article <253@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> mende@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (Bob Mende) writes: >I was telling everyone the impossiblity of moderating such a high volume >group! That may be true, but one of the reasons for a moderated group is to cut the volume down to a level that the backbone sites won't bitch about and then turn off. Some other points: 1) Moderated groups can, and do, work well. Check out mod.os. 2) They _don't_ tend to work well if there's a competing non-moderated group. For instance, how many people tried posting sources to mod.amiga.sources instead of to comp.sys.amiga? The only exception I know of is mod.sources, and that's because one of the moderators worked hard at making it work. 3) Most importantly, a moderated newsgroup has to be run from a well-connected site. Backbones work best; if the moderator doesn't live on a backbone, and can't get an account on a backbone site, then the machine the group is run from should be connected to a backbone. Note: UCBVAX is _not_ a backbone, and you can't get new connectsion to it anyway. In other words, I predict that any attempt to have a moderated amiga group will fail (== look like mod.unix) if the unmoderated groups still exist. If we try cutting to only a moderated group, it's not clear what will happen. A lot will depend on how hard the moderater is willing to work at it, cutting out flamage (like the recent MCISBTYC stuff), repeated answers, and the like. What the job amounts to is reading comp.sys.amiga, and posting the worthwhile stuff to mod.sys.amiga. Hmmm - maybe if we used that route for the cutover, it would work... <mike
george@scirtp.UUCP (01/31/87)
> From: perry@well.UUCP (Perry S. Kivolowitz) > > Sorry Bob, I just don't trust the moderated news group principle any more. > > NO TO A MODERATED AMIGA GROUP. > > If I did not make myself clear... I DO NOT WANT ONE EITHER!! I was > telling everyone the impossiblity of moderating such a high volume > group! > > Bob Surely it will be possible for both comp.sys.amiga and COMP.SYS.AMIGA to exist. Nobody really intentionally proposed getting rid of the non-moderated group, did they? It is unfortunate if something was read that way.
cjp@vax135.UUCP (01/31/87)
In article <510@hao.UCAR.EDU> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <253@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> mende@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (Bob Mende) writes: >> >> I was >>telling everyone the impossiblity of moderating such a high volume >>group! > > The alternative may be that certain sites that have very high phone bills >but few or no Amiga users may drop the group, thus limiting its distribution >and therefore its usefulness. If you don't want such groups (and this is >not to pick on Amiga; the same applies to Mac, PC, etc. source groups) to >be moderated, then I would recommend coming up with some other ways of >reducing volume to reasonable levels before the hammer falls. Personally, >I don't think there are any, but I certainly welcome constructive suggestions. If the alternatives are a) to cripple the group for EVERYBODY by enforcing slow, unreliable moderation, or b) to have some low-budget sites give up on the group and refuse to carry it, then let us choose b. Sure there may be sites cut off from the group who are willing and able to carry it, when their feeder site drops the group. This is relatively easy to fix by just finding another site to connect to. "You get what you pay for" applies here. There is currently more than one way to skin a cat, requiring only a sufficiency of funds at *participating* sites. With moderation, there is only one way to skin the cat and the cat can't be relied upon to cooperate. It's a problem of compound probabilities. P(entire mail path to moderator is working) * P(moderator's machine is working) * P(moderator is not vacationing or doing her day job) * P(moderator likes your posting) * P(moderator doesn't lose or mangle your posting) * P(your posting is still relevant four weeks later when it finally comes around) is a good approximation of zero. Besides, is there really *that* much "fat" to be trimmed? On balance, for comp.sys.amiga, I think not. Charles Poirier (USENET)!vax135!cjp Disclaimer: I don' need no steeenkin' disclaimer.
lear@aramis.UUCP (02/01/87)
On the subject of moderation of this newsgroup, I am of the opinion that
much of the useful information is drown out by superfluous postings and
widgets (you know the ones "> soandso said thisandthat"). I guess I am
not really in favor of complete moderation after actually moderating on
the arpanet for a while. It is very hard to judge what actually is
important and what is trash. However, I really wish that some of the
people out there would take a little care with regard to what they post
on the net. Many questions can be answered by reading the manual and in
many cases, only ONE answer is required. Also, a message need not be
quoted in its entirety or AT ALL in many cases. Furthermore, many
questions can be answered locally without posting to the net.
In short, let's try to moderate comp.sys.amiga by individually moderating
ourselves. (I can hear the backbone administrators laughing from here..)
Anyway, that's my $.02 for what it's worth,
Eliot Lear
Info-Amiga Moderator
--
[lear@rutgers.rutgers.edu]
[{harvard|pyrnj|seismo|ihnp4}!rutgers!lear]jones@dg_rtp.UUCP (02/02/87)
In article <510@hao.UCAR.EDU> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <253@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> mende@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (Bob Mende) writes: >>telling everyone the impossiblity of moderating such a high volume >>group! > The alternative may be that certain sites that have very high phone bills >but few or no Amiga users may drop the group, thus limiting its distribution >be moderated, then I would recommend coming up with some other ways of >reducing volume to reasonable levels before the hammer falls. Personally, >j don't think there are any, but I certainly welcome constructive suggestions. If the discussion of Mac vs. Amiga vs. Atari could be stopped it would cut down at least 30 %. Lets keep this bullentin board unModerated by limiting discussion to useful information about the amiga, personally if I wanted to know about the Mac or the Atari I would read their boards ! -- Greg Jones Data General, RTP, NC ...!seismo!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!jones
glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) (02/03/87)
Judging from the current state of affairs in the Amiga groups, I would say that a single unmoderated group is the best solution. The signal to noise ratio is good, software that are posted are high quality, software is effectively archived via the Fred Fish disks, all the benefits of a moderated group and a moderated source group supposedly provides!! If the group (comp.sys.amiga - unmoderated) deteriorates, let's re-examine. For now, LEAVE IT ALONE AND LET US STOP DISCUSSING THIS - THIS IS NOISE! -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Godfrey Lee, Cognos Incorporated, 3755 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1G 3N3 (613) 738-1440 decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!glee -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ross@ulowell.UUCP (02/05/87)
I think that before people judge the comp.sys.amiga group to be too high in volume, they should keep in mind that there is NO effective sources group for the Amiga. All the sources are therefore posted to the discussion group, as well as the discussion. This is why the volume is so high. If a working sources group was set up, the moderated one is a well known black hole, then people would use it; people who only wanted to see discussion, but not get massive source files would no longer be inconvienenced. Please don't moderate comp.sys.amiga. I know the person who moderates mod.amiga. And he definantly could do it if he had too, but it is really too much to expect any 1 person with moderate a discussion group with the popularity of comp.sys.amiga. [insert arguments about unreliability of moderated groups here] So, why not get the sources stuff working, and then see what the volume is like before condeming the group to death. Ross Miller uucp: ross@ulowell.uucp csnet: ross@ulowell.csnet
thomps@gitpyr.UUCP (02/07/87)
In article <510@hao.UCAR.EDU>, woods@hao.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: > In article <253@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> mende@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (Bob Mende) writes: > > > > I was > >telling everyone the impossiblity of moderating such a high volume > >group! > > The alternative may be that certain sites that have very high phone bills > but few or no Amiga users may drop the group, thus limiting its distribution > and therefore its usefulness. If you don't want such groups (and this is > not to pick on Amiga; the same applies to Mac, PC, etc. source groups) to > be moderated, then I would recommend coming up with some other ways of > reducing volume to reasonable levels before the hammer falls. Personally, > I don't think there are any, but I certainly welcome constructive suggestions. > Gregs comments are very important. I am not sure if everyone who reads this group actually understands how the net works. The net is dependent on back bone sites which pass along the entire volume of net traffic. For the last couple of years there have been continual complaints about high cost of phone bills for these sites and thus pushes for moderation of high volume news groups. If a back bone site desides to drop a news group, it restricts the number of sites that receive it. It may not happen only to sites with few amiga users. Even sites that have a lot of readers of a group may succomb to cost problems especially since many are academic institutions. Concerted action of news administrators at back bone several sites has eliminated binary postings in the ibm pc group. They accomplished this by simply stating that the news group would be dropped if the postings did not cease. Unfortunately, it can happen to comp.sys.amiga too. I don't want moderation but perhaps everyone could stop and think before posting another Ammiga vs. the world (or world vs. amiga) tirade. group would be dropped if such postings continued. -- Ken Thompson Phone : (404) 894-7089 Georgia Tech Research Institute Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!thomps