mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (System Mangler) (07/04/87)
Some while ago, Brian Reid asked why moderated groups consistently
score low on the readership polls. No one has answered this.
I can think of a few reasons:
1) Moderated groups cover highly focused subject areas, which
appeal to only a select group of people.
This is, by and large, what we like about moderated groups.
2) Many moderated groups have low information content.
Some moderated groups purport to discuss "XYZ" but the contents
are almost entirely "request for info on XYZ" and rarely is any
info or discussion presented on the topic itself. I can learn
nothing by reading such groups, even though the topic may be highly
relevant to my job. These groups have taken the netiquette admonition
(to mail rather than post the answers) to its logical extreme.
What these groups need is some responses and discussion. However,
the posting delay is often so large as to make this painful.
Which brings us to...
3) Many moderated groups are mailing lists first, newsgroups second.
To cater to the VAST MINORITY (as PGN put it) that receive the
group by ARPAnet mail, draconian measures such as digestification
are imposed so as not to swamp the ARPAnet mailers.
Also, knowing that Pentagon officials, NSA spooks, one's future
professors and one's boss are likely to be on the mailing list
puts somewhat of a damper on one's willingness to talk about
unconventional/controversial/risky ideas (i.e. the interesting ones)
which makes for sanitized (boring, non-informative) discussion,
if any at all.
Don Speck speck@vlsi.caltech.edu {seismo,rutgers,ames}!cit-vax!speck