dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (11/19/87)
Well, after my most recent experience, I think I'll not post any more to comp.source.misc, or at least not as long as it's moderated. My complaint isn't with Brandon; he's doing the job as well as it can be done. My tale of minor horror would have occurred as long as ANY moderator were in Brandon's shoes. Here's the story: I had an opportunity to post a program that would be of use to readers of some newsgroup. (In this case, it was misc.wanted, but next month I'll have a program for rec.bicycle so it's not an isolated case.) Since it was neither a major program nor a UNIX program, it seemed like a good idea to post to comp.sources.misc. What I did (hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time :-) was to: - Post a shar of the source to comp.sources.misc. This was already over 50K; couldn't add the executable for those without TPascal. Therefore, label it Par 1 of 2, and.... - Post a uuencoded arc of the MS-DOS executable as part 2 of 2 to comp.sources.misc. - Post an announcement of the availablility of the program to misc.wanted, where the request first appeared and the discussion was taking place. The result of this seemingly reasonable act was: - The announcement appeared immediately in misc.wanted. - Since comp.sources.misc is moderated, it was a week before the ammounced program appeared. Lots of Email in my box of the form "I didn't see it; where is it?" - Source is posted, labeled "Part 1 of 2", as I had titled it, together with a note from Brandon saying that the executable would be posted to comp.binaries.ibm.pc. More mail in my box from people not realizing that Part 2 was the aforementioned executable: "I missed Part 2; could you send it." - You may remember that Brandon was having trouble convincing his mailer that comp.binaries.ibm.pc existed. Thus it is a week later that executable appears in comp.binaries.ibm.pc, labeled "Part 2 of 2". More mail: "I missed Part 1; could you send it." Thus three closely related postings appeared over three newsgroups (I had only intended 2) over the space of almost three weeks. The rules were followed perfectly, and their application had removed much of the value of the posting and confused a lot of people. NEXT TIME, I'll "just say no" to moderation, and post the whole thing in the relevant newsgroup (misc.wanted or rec.bicycles). Any flames about the appropriateness of putting programs in those newsgroups will go straight to ramdisk to be read next week :-) +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T - Lincroft, NJ | | Logical - ...ihnp4!mtuxo!mtunb!dmt | | Audible - (201) 576 2442 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
woods@hao.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) (11/20/87)
In article <1133@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: >NEXT TIME, I'll "just say no" to moderation, and post the whole thing >in the relevant newsgroup (misc.wanted or rec.bicycles). I have a better idea. How about waiting for the postings to appear before announcing their availability? Seems sensible to me. I know it's more fun to flame moderation instead, but sometimes a little forethought can save a lot of hassle and controversey. --Greg
blarson@skat.usc.edu.UUCP (11/21/87)
In article <1133@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: >Well, after my most recent experience, I think I'll not post any more to >comp.source.misc, or at least not as long as it's moderated. My complaint >isn't with Brandon; he's doing the job as well as it can be done. My tale >of minor horror would have occurred as long as ANY moderator were in Brandon's >shoes. [horror story deleted] Most of your problems were your own fault. A) You should have reminded people about the moderate delay in your anouncment about the program. (The readers should have also rembered about this, so this isn't completly your fault.) B) Since the source was a single posting, you should not have labled it "1 of 2". C) Since the binary was a single posting, it should not have been labled "2 of 2". D) Sources and binaries belong in different groups. They are NOT logicly a single posting. Just because you are posting to a moderated group, you should not assume that the details will be taken care of by the moderator. I don't think you have a valid complaint against the moderation system here, just against your misuse of it. -- Bob Larson Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu Uucp: {sdcrdcf,cit-vax}!oberon!skat!blarson blarson@skat.usc.edu Prime mailing list (requests): info-prime-request%fns1@ecla.usc.edu
emigh@ncsugn.ncsu.edu (Ted H. Emigh) (11/22/87)
In article <964@hao.UCAR.EDU> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: |In article <1133@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: ||NEXT TIME, I'll "just say no" to moderation, and post the whole thing ||in the relevant newsgroup (misc.wanted or rec.bicycles). | | I have a better idea. How about waiting for the postings to appear before |announcing their availability? Seems sensible to me. I know it's more fun |to flame moderation instead, but sometimes a little forethought can save |a lot of hassle and controversey. The problem with this scheme is that by the time the source appears here, I notice it and post my message in newsgroup x, and my message in newsgroup x gets to the further reaches of Usenet the original sources newsnote has expired. Maybe sending the announcement to the moderator so the she/he can post it in newsgroup x when the sources are posted. Or use alt.sources. Or forget the hassles and not post it at all!!!! -- Ted H. Emigh, Dept. Genetics and Statistics, NCSU, Raleigh, NC uucp: mcnc!ncsuvx!ncsugn!emigh internet: emigh%ncsugn.ncsu.edu BITNET: NEMIGH@TUCC @ncsuvx.ncsu.edu:emigh@ncsugn.ncsu.edu
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP (11/22/87)
It was written <964@hao.UCAR.EDU> by woods@hao.UUCP that: In article <1133@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: >NEXT TIME, I'll "just say no" to moderation, and post the whole thing >in the relevant newsgroup (misc.wanted or rec.bicycles). I have a better idea. How about waiting for the postings to appear before announcing their availability? Seems sensible to me. I know it's more fun to flame moderation instead, but sometimes a little forethought can save a lot of hassle and controversey. Do you really think that is a better idea? How sad. Not only does it only address have the problem, but it is also totally hopeless to announce in one group a source being posted from another site anywhere near the time it is posted from the other site. When you have been with the net a bit longer, you will come to understand timewarping. However, you are right that it is fun to flame moderation. Of course, it is a bit like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but there is a certain Zen-like pleasure in doing well something simple. By the way, alot of interesting sources appear in non-sources groups these days. Perhaps we should put a .sources subgroup on every discussion group along with the proposed .announce subgroup. Of course, there should then be a .announce group specific to the .sources group as well. I wonder if we will need .sources groups on the .announce groups? --------- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (11/29/87)
As quoted from <1133@mtunb.ATT.COM> by dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman): +--------------- | Well, after my most recent experience, I think I'll not post any more to | comp.source.misc, or at least not as long as it's moderated. My complaint | isn't with Brandon; he's doing the job as well as it can be done. My tale | of minor horror would have occurred as long as ANY moderator were in Brandon's | shoes. Here's the story: +--------------- You could have solved some problems by posting differently. Not to mention the fact that this episode pointed up some major problems with the Net as it currently stands. +--------------- | idea to post to comp.sources.misc. What I did (hey, it seemed like a | good idea at the time :-) was to: | - Post a shar of the source to comp.sources.misc. This was already | over 50K; couldn't add the executable for those without TPascal. | Therefore, label it Par 1 of 2, and.... | - Post a uuencoded arc of the MS-DOS executable as part 2 of 2 | to comp.sources.misc. +--------------- The mistake. I *must* break uuencodes out and post separately to a different newsgroup. I suggest to ANYONE who wishes to post both sources and binaries to do so SEPARATELY, sending the binaries to the appropriate group, and announcing that fact. Not so doing slows up not only your posting but everything else in the queue -- a good way to get OTHER submitters angry at you. +--------------- | - You may remember that Brandon was having trouble convincing his | mailer that comp.binaries.ibm.pc existed. Thus it is a week later | that executable appears in comp.binaries.ibm.pc, | labeled "Part 2 of 2". More mail: "I missed Part 1; could | you send it." +--------------- Not my mailer, but everyone elses' inews. I had a discussion with Spaf about comp.binaries.ibm.pc a few months ago, he suggested I try to find another moderator for it, and if that failed to unmoderate it. After almost *no* response to the moderation request (not until *after* the sh*t hit the fan, which is about the only way to get the attention of most net.people), I sent out the control message. Which was summarily ignored by 2.10.2 and 2.10.3 sites (yes, they still exist -- and one bounce was from a 2.9 site!). The result was that the newsgroup was defunct for about 2 weeks. +--------------- | Thus three closely related postings appeared over three newsgroups | (I had only intended 2) over the space of almost three weeks. The rules | were followed perfectly, and their application had removed much of the | value of the posting and confused a lot of people. +--------------- "Followed perfectly"? If you had read the Welcome! posting any time since the formation of comp.binaries.ibm.pc in May, you would have realized that you can NOT post binaries to comp.sources.misc. As a result, *I* had to attempt to rectify your mistake. The result was lost time. Nor is this an arbitrary decision on my part. The rule is there because it was so voted by the people who subscribe to comp.sources.misc, after a long discussion. If you feel it's wrong, I invite you to reopen the debate in comp.sources.d; if the decision should change, I will comply. +--------------- | NEXT TIME, I'll "just say no" to moderation, and post the whole thing | in the relevant newsgroup (misc.wanted or rec.bicycles). Any flames | about the appropriateness of putting programs in those newsgroups | will go straight to ramdisk to be read next week :-) +--------------- Under the circumstances -- the sources being primarily of use in a particular application as a response to a particular request -- this is undoubtedly the best thing to do anyway. An alternative: if you send the pointer message to me "under separate cover" and clearly identified as part of your submission, I can post it to the correct newsgroup when I send out your posting, as a special case of redirecting non-sources. This will insure that all messages go out at the same time (barring net-based failures like that which afflicted comp.binaries.ibm.pc). General Observation: It helps to consider why the newsgroup is moderated BEFORE you post to it, and to check into the rules before posting. This would have prevented both this problem and the recent events surrounding MicroEmacs, which was sent out months ago to comp.sources.unix only to run into r$'s "editor block". Also consider the reasons for the rules (complaining about my policy of redirecting non-sources does little good when the majority has made it clear that this is preferred; in r$'s case, too many big editors had been received and posted, and people were complaining about their non- editor submissions which were effectively blocked until the editors had cleared [I got bit by this myself]). -- Brandon S. Allbery necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu {hoptoad,harvard!necntc,cbosgd,sun!mandrill!hal,uunet!hnsurg3}!ncoast!allbery Moderator of comp.sources.misc