bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (06/15/88)
Let us, for the moment, try to call things as they actually are. The proponents of comp.women, myself included, would like to see it in the comp.* set because, frankly, it gets better distribution. As the sysadmin of a site which takes only a limited feed of "serious" groups (comp,sci,news) I see this as a valid concern. The opponents of comp.women seem largely to be concerned with the misplacement of the newsgroup in the naming hierarchy. I think this, too, is a valid concern as it doesn't make sense to dilute the hierarchy for distributional reasons making it unuseable. I have not seen anyone suggest that the group is inherently bad or inappropriate, just inappropriate for the comp.* heirarchy. What's the problem? Is there a solution? Someone facetiously suggested bringing back the mod.* distribution. I agree, but I agree seriously. At one time moderated groups were thought to be inherently good because they increased the signal-to-noise ratio of the net while decreasing the volume. Yet a way to *easily* propagate and accept moderated groups was not included with the naming hierarchy. This is a political, more than a technical, problem. While it is simple enough to convince my employers to accept comp,sci,misc and mod and to coordinate the news linkage with our feeding site, it is less easy to justify accepting newsgroups on a case-by-case basis. In the olden days I had a 20 line sys entry for my site of which all but one entry was to accept unmoderated groups on a group-by-group basis, the one entry was to accept all moderated groups. To do the same now would probably require a larger entry and, frankly, I can't spare the time to track through which newsgroups are and are not moderated. While I can't speak for sites other than my own, we would in all likelihood accept entirely a distribution of moderated groups without question. It is my assumption that other sites who do not currently accept the soc,misc,talk (and possibly alt) distributions would do so as well. I don't know that this would solve many problems but it might at least provide a place for comp.women acceptable to a few more sites. -- Byron C. Howes UNC Educational Computing Service bch@ecsvax.uncecs.edu | bch@ecsvax.uucp | bch@ecsvax.bitnet
pleasant@porthos.rutgers.edu (Mel Pleasant) (06/16/88)
The latest news software does allow you to differentiate between moderated
and unmoderated newsgroups. In the flags field of a sys file entry,
including an "m" restricts the feed to moderated newsgroups, a "u" to
unmoderated newsgroups. If you believed you could convince you management
to carry anything that's moderated but haven't because you thought that is
was going to be tough to keep track of which groups were which, go ahead and
convince him, bring up the latest software, and away you go !!!
--
Mel Pleasant
{backbone}!rutgers!pleasant pleasant@rutgers.edu mpleasant@zodiac.bitnetdavid@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (06/16/88)
In article <5274@ecsvax.UUCP> bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) writes: >Someone facetiously suggested bringing back the mod.* distribution. I in a word, ****NO**** >At one time moderated groups were thought >to be inherently good because they increased the signal-to-noise ratio >of the net while decreasing the volume. Yet a way to *easily* propagate >and accept moderated groups was not included with the naming hierarchy. Yes they are generally better than unmoderated groups. However there isn't a good reason to seperate them off in another hierarchy and mess up the nice tree we have now. >This is a political, more than a technical, problem. While it is simple >enough to convince my employers to accept comp,sci,misc and mod and to >coordinate the news linkage with our feeding site, it is less easy to >justify accepting newsgroups on a case-by-case basis. In the olden >days I had a 20 line sys entry for my site of which all but one entry >was to accept unmoderated groups on a group-by-group basis, the one >entry was to accept all moderated groups. To do the same now would >probably require a larger entry and, frankly, I can't spare the time >to track through which newsgroups are and are not moderated. You don't have to do all that. Instead you open up the current copy of Usenet Version B Installation, flip to the flags section, and see that there is a flag which passes only moderated groups. Have your news feed use that flag for feeding you all moderated groups. Very simple. They might end up having two sys file entries for you -- one for unmoderated groups and the other for moderated. Big deal. -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <---- s.k.a.: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- A proud supporter of the Marcel Marceau Foundation <------ Because a mime is a terrible thing to waste
bch@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Byron C. Howes) (06/16/88)
In article <9686@e.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.e{u (David Herron) writes: >>Someone facetiously suggested bringing back the mod.* distribution. I > >in a word, ****NO**** Well, that's concise but not necessarily polite! >Yes they are generally better than unmoderated groups. However there isn't >a good reason to seperate them off in another hierarchy and mess up the >nice tree we have now. That's the problem. The naming hierarchy is elegant but it does not serve the purposes of the news network -- making selection of articles on the basis of distribution simpler and encouraging high signal groups. It is -- typically -- a programmer's solution to a political problem. The current conflagration suggests that it is not functional, no matter how nice it may be. >You don't have to do all that. Instead you open up the current >copy of Usenet Version B Installation, flip to the flags section, >and see that there is a flag which passes only moderated groups. >Have your news feed use that flag for feeding you all moderated >groups. Very simple. They might end up having two sys file entries >for you -- one for unmoderated groups and the other for moderated. >Big deal. This has been explained to me. It does not, however, accomplish what I see as the explicit purpose of essentially creating a backbone for the passage of moderated groups (if I may take the liberty of equating the distribution with a backbone as has been done with the alt.* groups.) What is desireable is to explicitly encourage the propagation of moderated groups in preference to their brothers -- the current hierarchy does not accomplish this. Sure. I can set up the sys file(s) as indicated and probably will, but it does nothing in terms of the current problems whereas a technical means of encouraging distributions of moderated groups might. I always bridle when programmers' sensibilities get in the ways of users' needs, convenience and workability of the system. -- Byron C. Howes UNC Educational Computing Service bch@ecsvax.uncecs.edu | bch@ecsvax.uucp | bch@ecsvax.bitnet
jerry@oliveb.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) (06/18/88)
In article <5274@ecsvax.UUCP> bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) writes: >Let us, for the moment, try to call things as they actually are. > >The proponents of comp.women, myself included, would like to see it in >the comp.* set because, frankly, it gets better distribution. As the >sysadmin of a site which takes only a limited feed of "serious" groups >(comp,sci,news) I see this as a valid concern. Right! You want to trick some people who have decided they don't want non-technical talk groups into carrying them for you. If a site decides that for cost or political reasons they don't want to carry groups that are not directly useful to them then I think you should respect their decision. You may not agree with them and certainly you can try to convince them otherwise. I now propose that we start a new news group "comp.drugs" for the discussion of drug usage and computing. I want it in the "comp" group because some sites won't carry alt.drugs. Start sending me your votes.:-) (This is satire in case you can't figure that out.) Please note that this is a theoretical problem for me. I already carry all groups and would carry this duscussion about women computers regardless of what its name was.
bch@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Byron C. Howes) (06/18/88)
In article <23922@oliveb.olivetti.com> jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes: >In article <5274@ecsvax.UUCP> bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) writes: >>The proponents of comp.women, myself included, would like to see it in >>the comp.* set because, frankly, it gets better distribution. As the >>sysadmin of a site which takes only a limited feed of "serious" groups >>(comp,sci,news) I see this as a valid concern. > >Right! You want to trick some people who have decided they don't want >non-technical talk groups into carrying them for you. I see that the venerable usenet habit of incomplete quoting of articles is alive and well. In the paragraph which followed the one you quoted I said exactly what you said -- I have no desire to trick anyone into carrying anything for me that they don't want to carry. I thought I fairly presented both sides of the question. I think you owe me an apology. -- Byron C. Howes UNC Educational Computing Service bch@ecsvax.uncecs.edu | bch@ecsvax.uucp | bch@ecsvax.bitnet
jerry@oliveb.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) (06/22/88)
In article <5293@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) writes: > >I see that the venerable usenet habit of incomplete quoting of articles >is alive and well. In the paragraph which followed the one you quoted >I said exactly what you said -- I have no desire to trick anyone into >carrying anything for me that they don't want to carry. I thought I >fairly presented both sides of the question. I think you owe me an >apology. I didn't realize that "dilute the hierarchy for distributional reasons" meant "exactly" the same thing as tricking others into paying for something you want. I have as much trouble identifying with that as you presumably have with "tricking others". I do appologize for directing my criticism against you personally. You do seem to be aware of the problem and attempting to find a solution.