justin@inmet (06/14/89)
Re: In Moderation Network Jeez. I confess, Usenet's hostility to change has to be one of its most remarkable features. FACT: The signal/noise ratio on the net has been steadily declining for ... well, at least the couple of years that I've been around. Probably Longer. FACT: A substantial number of people are continually dropping off of the Net, due to the ever-growing noise level. Including many of the founders of the Net. OPINION: It is a Bad Thing that many people are no longer using the Net, due to the difficulty of reading it. Anterior is offering a simple service, a pared-down version of the Net with a lot of that noise cut out. Frankly, the cost listed is pretty reasonable, considering the *huge* amount of work involved in doing that -- I expect that they're going to need a substantial payroll. However, to listen to you people, one would think that Geoff had proposed limiting the Usenet to just what he wants to see on it, and preventing anyone from getting anything else. Sit down and think a minute. Given the fact that anyone can get a full feed at will, for a reasonable cost, the only people who are going to be reading In Moderation are the people who aren't willing to put up with the sometimes-incredible hassle of dealing with Usenet. No one who *likes* the Net the way it currently is is going to use it. Therefore, In Moderation is going to draw new, possibly interesting people to the Net, who have previously been unable or unwilling to deal with it before. So what the bloody hell is *WRONG* with that? I'm not saying that In Moderation is perfect; I've sent an extensive list of questions off to Anterior, and I'll reserve judgement until I get a reply. But I really get teed off by all of you who *cut* the connectivity of the Net, in the name of everything being free. Sorry, there is only so much volunteer labor to go around. If the Net is to grow and prosper, it's going to take labor, and that labor costs. If some people are willing to pay to get an improved version of the Net, who are you to deny them that? The only thing you're hurting by trying to screw up the In Moderation net is the Net community as a whole... -- Justin du Coeur "Usenet: the network that eats its young" -- a wise sage
korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) (06/17/89)
In article <197600001@inmet>, justin@inmet writes: > Re: In Moderation Network > FACT: The signal/noise ratio on the net has been steadily declining for ... > well, at least the couple of years that I've been around. Probably Longer. Ok, can someone provide an example of what's signal and what's noise? I see many references to 'noise'. I say noise has different meaning to each individual reading the net. I enjoy the net as it is now. I am not familiar with the net as it looked 2 or more years ago. Remember: the only constant is change. -- Gary Korenek (713)274-5357 korenek@ficc.uu.net Ferranti Int'l Controls Corp. PO Box 5012 Sugar Land, Texas 77487-5012
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (06/17/89)
I, for one, would like to see some examples of what IN MODERATION
would *keep* and also some examples of what they would *discard*.
In the groups I regularly read, the stuff I kill instantly is usually
'legitimate' discussion on a topic I'm simply not concerned about.
Since a service like IN MODERATION would have no way to tell which
'legitimate' topics I'm interested in and which I'm not, I don't see
how they could be of benefit.
If all they did in sci.space, say, was filter out the erroneous BITNET
'remove me from this list' messages, of which about 10 per week
appear, the benefit would be microscopic. Almost no bandwidth is spent
on those mistake messages, despite the fact that everyone is aware of
them. If, on the other hand, IMN removed every vestige of debate and
discussion, leaving only things like the weekly Orbital Elements
posting and Peter Yee's transcribed NASA Public Affairs press
releases, then sci.space would become a dessicated kiosk for
institutional handouts, devoid of user interaction.
If IMN simply wants to 'digest' every newsgroup and distribute the
results periodically, that's OK but no substitute for real netnews.
And where to users wishing to RESPOND to things they read in an IMN
digest go to post? Would we be faced with a new flood of messages
ending in 'Please respond via EMAIL, I don't [really] read this
group'?
I would reiterate a position I previously stated elsewhere: IMN can
only get in the way on the low volume, highly specific newsgroups;
and there seems little useful it can do for zoos like news.groups
or talk.whatever. Its natural target groups are frequently already
available as digests via mail at no extra cost.
--
You may not redistribute this article for profit without written permission.
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
"Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NETdavidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (06/19/89)
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) said:
-I, for one, would like to see some examples of what IN MODERATION
-would *keep* and also some examples of what they would *discard*.
-
Actually, they have no reason or obligation to do this until the service
actually becomes available (if indeed it ever does).
It's not as if they're doing anything which will affect the net. All the
IM folks are proposing is sending a subset of messages from the net to other
sites. The fact that they recieve some compensation for the time spent doesn't
bother me at all.
I just don't understand what all the fuss is about. Or are ALL of you people
against the IM network members of the Free Software Foundation (who's viewpoint
I understand).
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
"It has nothing to do with the size of Mr. Alnwick's company. We go after
companies large and small."
- Rita Black, spokeswoman for IBM
Unix Today!, 5/29/89, page 51patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (06/29/89)
In article <3749@viscous.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: >tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) said: >I just don't understand what all the fuss is about. Or are ALL of you people >against the IM network members of the Free Software Foundation (who's viewpoint >I understand). I am not a member of FSF. And I understand their viewpoint also, although I don't entirely agree with it. I am not opposed to anyone making money from their own creative efforts. Nor am I opposed to people who want to give their work away, i.e. FSF. I actually do a little of each. My opposition is to taking an effort directed one way (such as Usenet) and attempting to subvert it to work the other way. Let the people who want to have commercial network activity start all the commercial nets they want; sign up all the paying subscribers they can, and do their thing. But I did not drop my membership in Compuserve and start participating in Usenet in order to send my efforts out to another commercial service. If you see no objection in people making commercial and profitable use of Usenet, then try it in reverse: Ask GEnie or Compuserve to allow free use of their stuff on Usenet. See how far it gets you. Think about the response from CIS, etc, and see if you can understand why some of us feel the same way in reverse. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (07/23/89)
In article <197600001@inmet> justin@inmet writes: >Re: In Moderation Network >Jeez. >I confess, Usenet's hostility to change has to be one of its most remarkable >features. And the number of people on the net who fail to realize that Usenet is not GEnie and Compuserve is not Usenet is also amazing. How far do you think this argument would get you on GEnie or Compuserve? They have their way of doing things and their purpose for existence, just as Usenet has its purpose. >FACT: The signal/noise ratio on the net has been steadily declining for ... >well, at least the couple of years that I've been around. Probably Longer. That depends on who you ask, and which groups you read. >FACT: A substantial number of people are continually dropping off of the >Net, due to the ever-growing noise level. Including many of the founders of >the Net. This does not seem to be reflected in the monthly Arbitron reports, although those reports are not to be considered completely reliable. If anything, my reading of the Arbitron data (is there any other source of information on this topic?) is that *more* people are involved with Usenet than before. >OPINION: It is a Bad Thing that many people are no longer using the Net, due >to the difficulty of reading it. Well again, maybe it would be a bad thing if fewer people were around, but I get the impression more people are around, or at least the newcomers have more than offset the number of old-timers not around. >Anterior is offering a simple service, a pared-down version of the Net with >a lot of that noise cut out. Frankly, the cost listed is pretty reasonable, >considering the *huge* amount of work involved in doing that -- I expect that >they're going to need a substantial payroll. Amazing! You contradict yourself in the same paragraph. If they are offering a 'simple service', why will they have a huge amount of work invlving a big payro? That does not sound simple to me. >However, to listen to you people, one would think that Geoff had proposed >limiting the Usenet to just what he wants to see on it, and preventing >anyone from getting anything else. But by definition, 'signal to noise ratio' means the amount of things the reader wants to see versus what he does not want to see. Do you want to go by my estimation of 'signal to noise' here, or Mr. Goodfellow's? Either way, the result is the same: it will be what the editor/excerpter/moderator 'wants to see on it', and will not include what he does not want to see. Whoever does this will eliminate what he deems 'noise' and retain what he calls 'signal'. So in my original message saying In Moderation would be what the people involved wanted to present, and would not include what they did not like, where is there a difference in what you said above about the high 'noise to signal ratio'? It is just going to be a matter of who picks the noise and defines the signal, no? >In Moderation is going to draw new, possibly interesting people to the >Net, who have previously been unable or unwilling to deal with it before. >So what the bloody hell is *WRONG* with that? But will it be two way traffic? UUNET also charges, but they pass the traffic both ways. Does Mr. Goodfellow intend to extend Usenet groups and messages of his choice to his subscribers *and* permit them to respond to the messages, passing them back to the entire network for reivew? Or will they just read his stuff and have no opportunity to reply to the person who wrote the item in a public forum as it was originally presented? And if he does permit two way traffic, will he screen what his subscribers send us, the way he screens what he permits them to receive? And suppose he passes one of their messages to us: will he then automatically insure that our reply gets passed back? What if they send something, but his censors deem the reply from this end to be unworthy? How will his subscribers know we even saw, let alone replied in a public forum? >But I really get teed off by all of you who *cut* the connectivity >of the Net, in the name of everything being free. Sorry, there is only >so much volunteer labor to go around. If the Net is to grow and prosper, >it's going to take labor, and that labor costs. If some people are >willing to pay to get an improved version of the Net, who are you to >deny them that? The only thing you're hurting by trying to screw up >the In Moderation net is the Net community as a whole... By definition, Usenet has always been free, or as nearly so as possible. There have always been phone bills to pay, etc. By defintion, networks like GEnie and Compuserve have always had paid employees and labor costs. If there is 'only so much volunteer labor to go around', then that is the theoretical limit to Usenet's size and growth. I suppose there is also some theoretical limit to the number of people who will pay for subscription services like Compuserve. If people are willing to pay to get an improved version of the net, that is fine -- they can follow the UUNET example, and set up a not-for-profit corporation to provide communications/feed services to places which could not otherwise afford it. They can purchase public access machines and make accounts available at a modest charge to good users who otherwise have not been able to get access (no university affiliation, etc). There are a lot of ways to help improve the net. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956