tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos) (06/19/88)
In article <2805@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <1988Jun14.230853.7574@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Actually, there is one thing that can be done without software changes, >>something that would cut traffic quite a bit and simultaneously greatly >>improve the signal/noise ratio: go 100% moderated. > > bravo! here's my vote, and an offer to moderate a group. Do I finally hear some peace and quiet coming??? :-) Here's my vote too. I also will offer to moderate a group - even one I don't read! Ted Manos tmanos@aocgl.{COM,UUCP,UU.NET} or ...!{uunet,mcdchg}!aocgl!tmanos
vixie@palo-alto.DEC.COM (Paul Vixie) (06/21/88)
In article <28.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> tmanos@aocgl.UUCP (Theodore W. Manos): # In article <2805@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) writes: # > bravo! here's my vote, and an offer to moderate a group. # # Do I finally hear some peace and quiet coming??? :-) Here's my vote too. # I also will offer to moderate a group - even one I don't read! I favour moderation, for reasons I'll outline in an article here in the next week or several. However, I have to jump in at this early moment to say: if you think a group should be moderated, volunteer; if you want to volunteer for something, think of a group. Moderators have to know a lot about their topic -- to answer frequently asked questions and to recognize subtle flames, among other things -- and they have to care a great deal about the topic and about the net -- because moderation can consume a vast amount of effort if you have a popular group. Again: don't bother to volunteer to moderate a group you don't read, because you aren't qualified; don't suggest that a group be moderated unless you are willing to moderate it. Two rules of thumb WRT moderation. -- Paul Vixie Digital Equipment Corporation Work: vixie@dec.com Play: paul@vixie.UUCP Western Research Laboratory uunet!decwrl!vixie uunet!vixie!paul Palo Alto, California, USA +1 415 853 6600 +1 415 864 7013
barry@eos.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (06/24/88)
[in re an all-moderated net] In article <379@teletron.UUCP> andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott) writes: >The most important consequence would still be that the overall net >bandwidth requirements would be sharply reduced, which I hope most >everybody agrees would be a "good thing". [...] The net simply >cannot continue to grow at this pace. Actually, that's far from certain. The death of the net via overload is a spectre that's been raised many times, but it has yet to happen. I think it *is* time to reorganize the backbone out of existence, however. There is no denying that a few sites bear an unfairly large share of the costs, and with the net as large as it is now, a more equal distribution of the weight should be feasible. >The overloaded moderator argument could be solved by having multiple >moderators, perhaps by a regional basis. This just multiplies the problem of finding moderators. There are 100's of newsgroups, many very large; moderating them would be extremely time-consuming, and pays exactly nothing. >I think that USENET would be have an entirely different character if it >was completely moderated. It seems to me that a lot of mindless posting >goes on in many of the high volume newsgroups, postings that might not >be made in the first place if the groups were known to be moderated. We agree, but I see this as a problem, not a solution. Virtually everyone agrees there's a large "noise" component in the news, but we don't agree on what part is signal, and what part noise. I'd rather see improvements in news software that would better allow each reader to filter out what they find uninteresting. Make it possible for every reader to be their own moderator, in other words. >noise is too polite a >word for some of the crap I've seen in recent months. The net used to be >a very civil place. You must be a real old-timer. I've been reading the news since '83, and can't recall when the net was a civil place. >It seems as though on USENET it is permissible to be rude in >a public place. I can't understand how this attitude manifested itself, >but it is clearly to the detriment of the net. I disagree. What is unique and wonderful about this net is the nearly-absolute free speech it provides. Moderating it all will inevitably throw out the baby with the bathwater, I fear. One person's "rude" is another's "forceful", and a third person's "clever". The place to filter out junk is at the reader's end. >I think it's time we decided what USENET is and what it >should be. One thing I think it should *not* be is a global BBS. That >means that we should get rid of "frivolous" newsgroups, or at least >replace them with moderated equivalents. Well, but that's our fundamental disagreement. For as long as there are means to bear the weight of the traffic, a global BBS is exactly what I WANT the net to be, and the popularity of "junk" groups with both readers and writers suggests that a very large number of people agree with me. What we need is *more* anarchy, enough so that every site has great freedom to decide what it will and will not carry, unilaterally. That means having a very distributed network for passing the news around, with no site utterly dependent on the good will and good money of just one other site to get the news. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry - QQQCLC - NASA-Ames Research Center ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {most major sites}!ames!eos!barry ARPA: barry@eos