towfigh@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mark Mehdi Towfigh) (02/01/89)
This matter may have been discussed before, and I just may have never noticed it (believe me, I have been looking around), but I think a new way needs to be invented in order to address commonly asked questions. Unfortunately, I cannot think of such a modification that will not require the modification of existing news software, but here goes. I have noticed increasingly in the newsgroups I read that a large number of postings involve material, discussions, and points which have been rehashed time and again. Postings by people on these same topics waste bandwidth, make it difficult to read high-volume newsgroups, and anger participants. While I believe that news.announce.newusers "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions" is a move in the right direction, responding to this trend, I am wondering if it might not even help more to attach a set of files, or "permanent postings" to each newsgroup, which people would (either voluntarily or perhaps, with news software, involuntarily) have to read upon subscription to a newsgroup. The reason I think this is a good idea is that there is a lot of specific knowledge related to each newsgroup which does not need to be re-discussed every 5 months. Famous examples include: families of jokes in rec.humor, discussions on the existence of God in talk.religion.misc, or "how to un-rotate" rot13'd articles. The main question which remains for me on this is how to implement it properly. For example, who should summarize the discussion of the word "hopefully" so that sci.lang can move ahead unclogged? Perhaps a volunteer editor, subject to a vote, could draft such "permanent postings" and then later accept modifications, just as Gene Spafford currently does with some of his postings (which right now he must re-post all the time, instead of updating the "permanent posting".) After the start-up time, which admittedly would be difficult, changes to "permposts" could be in the form of diffs, just as some semi-permanent posts (like the list of active newsgroups) are maintained for sysadmins today. Perhaps archived short programs, including the news software itself, could then become part of permposts, making distributions of changes to such popular programs faster and easier. This would then consolidate a lot of the disk space currently used in many places to store such postings. At the simplest level, this idea could consist of a one- or two-page introduction file for each group, which could outline (in more than the one-sentence description in the "List of Active Newsgroups") the stated purpose of the group, who reads it, and topics commonly discussed. When changes are made to "permposts", the articles could become unread again so that long-time users could be kept up-to-date, too. This is an idea which I have only recently thought of, and is thus not well-formed. My only request is that in its discussion, the focus should be on the idea itself, not the specific implementation suggestions I have outlined above. The question is: should a facility for postings permanently attached to newsgroups be created? Hope this isn't drivel, Mark -- =============================================================================== Mark Towfigh BITNET: TOWFIGH@PUCC Internet: towfigh@phoenix.princeton.edu "The Earth is but one Country, and Mankind its Citizens" -- Baha'u'llah
gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (02/02/89)
/ news.admin / towfigh@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mark Mehdi Towfigh) / Jan 31, 1989 / >a large >number of postings involve material, discussions, and points which >have been rehashed time and again. Postings by people on these same >topics waste bandwidth, make it difficult to read high-volume >newsgroups, and anger participants. > >While I believe that news.announce.newusers "Answers to Frequently >Asked Questions" is a move in the right direction, responding to >this trend, I am wondering if it might not even help more to attach >a set of files, or "permanent postings" to each newsgroup, which >people would (either voluntarily or perhaps, with news software, >involuntarily) have to read upon subscription to a newsgroup. This is really not as radical as it may seem. Notes has an optional permanent note in each group, called "the policy note", which is always Note #0, and is not subject to expiration. It's usually used for a policy statement on how that group should be used. There is no reason not to generalize on that concept, allowing more than one such note, and allowing for network updates of it (via the "Supersedes:" mechanism). Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,att}!nucsrl!gore
ulmo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Brad Allen) (02/02/89)
I have thought this was a badly needed feature of USENET ever since I learned that news doesn't stay around forever four years ago. I was ready to suggest this too. Here were my rough ideas, for USENET: Every group would not only have a moderator, but also a maintainer of the database of current common reference/history/whatever it should be called (what is a good name for this stuff??) In addition to this, I was wanting to suggest adding continuous-message- hierarchy features to USENET which would keep every current message organized to some extent. Off the top of my head, I could say that new topics (branches, threads, subjects, whatever you call it) may at first be unapportioned or placed in the static tree hierarchy by the user, but later this positioning could be modified or maintained by the reference moderator. Also inherent in the idea in the last paragraph are a few more things: author of links; control messages which update links; version #s of links, messages, etc. hopefully using some deterministic algorithm which can smoothly take care of the problems of out of order lost duplicates etc. I'll note that a lot of this is already in place, such as Reference: lines and such, but that this would need to be expanded and modified yet further for elegant functionality ... > a set of files, or "permanent postings" to each newsgroup, which This is somewhat already doable. All that would have to be done is modification to the rules to allow for this moderator of permanent postings, and then use the same Supercedes:, Approved:, etc. constructs as used in comp.mail.maps and elsewhere. > After the start-up time, which admittedly would be difficult, > changes to "permposts" could be in the form of diffs, just as some The impitous for diffing news is obvious. However, version control would have to be implemented; a rule would be declared: you may only obtain version C by appling diff B on posting Y, and not by applying it on posting X; each diff would have to explicity state these things. It all seems pretty easy to me. more impractical semantic mumblings from brad allen <ulmo@ssyx.ucsc.edu> P.S. For an ok implementation of a tree message system, you can call XBBS (NOT Xenix BBS!), 1200/300bps, +14084764945, 4 lines, crashes frequently (buggy as hell), but it's there and it has documentation. This is a closer relative to Stuart II (now defunct) than Magpie is.
linimon@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Mark Linimon) (02/03/89)
In article <6199@saturn.ucsc.edu>, ulmo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Brad Allen) writes: > Every group would not only have a moderator, but also a maintainer of the > database of current common reference/history/whatever it should be called > (what is a good name for this stuff??) Some people seem quite opposed to moderation. (My own personal opinion is that is because there is no set of "guidelines for moderators," a can of worms I am saving up ideas for at a later time). However, the maintainer does not necessarily have to be a 'moderator.' Look at what John F. Haugh does in misc.jobs.offered: - Once a month he posts a "welcome to misc.jobs.offered" message. This covers the purpose of the group, who may post, what may be posted. - Through email (and when necessary, through posting) he responds to inaappropriate postings by suggesting more appropriate groups, or asking that the discussion merely stay relevant to the group. - He remains available by email for questions. Yet he's not a 'moderator'. He's acting more like what I've seen termed an 'ombudsman.' (I'm not particularly fond of the term, mind you, but it is descriptive). I think what we need, in the absence of a clear consensus of guidelines for moderators that everyone can sign up to, is more people to volunteer to be ombudsmen for various groups. Just having someone (whose email address is posted regularly) available for questions should cut down a lot on postings of the form 'does anybody still have...' or 'what was the conclusion of...' Note also that since no formal mechanism exists, there can be several ombudsmen in various parts of the country, and duty could rotate on a fairly frequent basis. I really think this would help for high-traffic groups like comp.unix.questions and comp.language.c, where a _summary_ of the emailed discussions would have a higher signal-to-noise ratio than the current content of the groups. I will summarize any email I get, and otherwise encourage further discussions on the net. Disclaimer #1: so as not to be a hypocrite, if such an idea is acceptable I'll agree to do it for either or both comp.periphs and/or comp.os.misc. Disclaimer #2: I am not against moderation myself, and would be willing to help along discussions to define guidelines. However, from discussions in the past I feel it will be much more difficult to achieve a consensus on this. Mark Linimon Mizar, Inc. uucp: (work) {convex, killer, sun!texsun}!mizarvme!linimon uucp: (home) killer!nominil!linimon
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) (02/04/89)
In article <6022@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> towfigh@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mark Mehdi Towfigh) writes: >At the simplest level, this idea could consist of a one- or two-page >introduction file for each group, which could outline (in more than >the one-sentence description in the "List of Active Newsgroups") the >stated purpose of the group, who reads it, and topics commonly >discussed. When changes are made to "permposts", the articles could >become unread again so that long-time users could be kept >up-to-date, too. Mark Linimon (linimon@nominil) uttered my name in vain ... Gene Spafford is probably best qualified to elaborate on the details of periodically reappearing postings. It is an idea I particularly like, and have used with excellent results [ IMHO ] with misc.jobs. All that is needed is a periodic process to repost the article every month or so. I use a crontab job and keep the document in an SCCS file in case I decide to remove some set of changes. Each month at midnight the article is drug out and posted. While I sleep ;-) If Mark is really interested in getting involved, I suggest he see how much support he can get in one of his favorite groups, call a vote and have himself elected `caretaker' or whatever. I think this is the best alternative to a completely moderated USENET anyone could ever come up with. With another 400 or so Mark's we would be able to greatly reduce the N/S ratio. ObFlame - would someone go whack Maroney on the head for what he is doing in soc.women. That is NOT how to take care of a newsgroup. He is being Real Stoopid(tm). -- John F. Haugh II +--Quote of the Week:------------------ VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Get it through your head: InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | CARS ARE THE ENEMY." UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +------ -- Bob Fishell ----------