webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) (05/13/87)
In article <124@academ.UUCP>, sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) writes: > In article <522@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes: > >Of course, if you want someone else's idea of quality, there are > >professionally edited publications on every subject covered by usenet > >(well, maybe there isn't one about stargate yet). ... > I have yet to find a professionally editied publication that deals with > the technical aspects of computing on as Masscomp computer. If you find > one, please send me a note so I can inform the people who read > comp.sys.masscomp. Responses that mention unix or 68000-based computers > do not deal with the real-time or data-acquisition aspects of these > computers and it is the consideration of all these factors that make > the need for the newsgroup necessary. My news source has only 5 articles from your group. The first was a 14 line request about some mysterious program called `top' from some user (sent 1 May 87). The second was 72 lines written by you summarizing some users group meeting (dated 3 May 87). The third was 67 lines written by you continuing the summary (dated 4 May 87). The fourth was 13 lines written by you about the X window system. The fifth and last was a 28 line message asking about some multi-machine configuration problems (dated 8 May 87). I don't remember seeing anything specific to real-time data-acquisition. I would think that a group on such a topic would be much more interesting. Unless masscomp is one of these wierd closed-system/no-source/bad-manual systems, I am hard put to figure out what you are up to out there (aside from generating messages for your group). [Incidently, your signature line on the group indicates that you are president of the Masscomp User's Group -- don't they have a newsletter?] [By the way, do you archive your group?] > I chose to set it up as moderated because many Masscomp users are not > on usenet, and have to have the items in the newsgroup mailed to them > directly. Also, I believe that removing redundancy is simply good stewartship > of the usenet resource. A moderated newsgroup affords this; an unmoderated > one does not. As a moderator, I do not tend to enforce my ideas of quality, > but simply attempt to provide a conduit between users. I grant that this is a > monitored flow that will sometimes have my comments added in, but often > that takes care of the query or stimulates other thoughts. I would love to hear/see all these redundant messages you have been filtering out. Perhaps 60 users recently asked if anyone had gotten `top' to work? Or perhaps the microvax/masscomp configuration has spawned hundreds of requests about how to get it working? I fail to see why it is necessary for you to moderate the usenet discussion in order for you to forward it to non-usenet users. Certainly it is possible to answer queries and stimulate discussion without forcing all of it to go through you first. In any event, the usenet is a conduit, a moderator is more properly termed a bottleneck. ---------------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu)
usenet@soma.bcm.tmc.edu (USENET maintenance) (05/19/87)
In article <228@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes: >Unless masscomp is one of these wierd closed-system/no-source/bad-manual systems, >I am hard put to figure out what you are up to out there (aside from generating >messages for your group). It is a Multibus-based 680X0 machine. The next generation will be VME-based. Since your sample is 5 messages, you probably don't know much about the scope of the group. So, I would say that you indeed would be hard put to figure out what we are up to out here. >[Incidently, your signature line on the group indicates that you are >president of the Masscomp User's Group -- don't they have a newsletter?] Yes, it is called MUSings. >[By the way, do you archive your group?] Yes, I distributed the first year's archive at the users' group meeting that the summaries summarize. >I would love to hear/see all these redundant messages you have been >filtering out. Perhaps 60 users recently asked if anyone had gotten >`top' to work? Or perhaps the microvax/masscomp configuration has >spawned hundreds of requests about how to get it working? Are you saying that having the noise is worth a lack of moderation? If you are, you must have access to limitless long-distance and gigabytes of disk-space on which to store this noise. Most Masscomp users do not. > >I fail to see why it is necessary for you to moderate the usenet >discussion in order for you to forward it to non-usenet users. > It is not necessary. It is just an easy way to allow others (not on USENET) to join into the discussion. The internet has been doing this way along time. >Certainly it is possible to answer queries and stimulate discussion without >forcing all of it to go through you first. > I agree, but with moderation there is one answer written once, not 30 or 40 times. Again, you seem to opt for high noise and repetition vs. conservation of resources. >---------------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu) Stan uucp:{shell,rice,seismo}!soma!sob Opinions expressed here Olan domain:sob@rice.edu or sob@soma.bcm.tmc.edu are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)790-9004 noone else's.
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP (05/27/87)
In article <3112@soma.bcm.tmc.edu>, usenet@soma.bcm.tmc.edu (USENET maintenance) writes: > It is a Multibus-based 680X0 machine. The next generation will be VME-based. > Since your sample is 5 messages, you probably don't know much about the scope > of the group. So, I would say that you indeed would be hard put to figure out what > we are up to out here. Well, I am glad to hear that it is just a generic workstation that could be easily discussed in the context of comp.sys.workstations. You are right that I had only a very limited sample to view. Since the creation of the group (under the comp name), my site has now seen 12 articles (of which only 2 are around). It will be interesting to see if there are ever enough articles posted to establish what the group is up to. > Yes, I distributed the first year's archive at the users' group meeting > that the summaries summarize. I was more interested in archives that are available via email requests. > >I would love to hear/see all these redundant messages you have been > >filtering out. ... > Are you saying that having the noise is worth a lack of moderation? > ... No. I am saying that I would love to see these messages. I personally do not believe all this hypothetical noise exists. The group just has too little in the way of postings to give one the feeling that it is in desparate need of moderation. Even if all this noise does exist, I would find it interesting to see how my own judgments of such noise would compare to those of the moderator (elsewhere I have maintained that there is an aspect of subjectivity in such judgements). > > > >I fail to see why it is necessary for you to moderate the usenet > >discussion in order for you to forward it to non-usenet users. > > > It is not necessary. It is just an easy way to allow others (not on USENET) > to join into the discussion. The internet has been doing this way along time. I hardly see why it is easier for the moderator to post to non-usenet people incoming messages than it is for a reader to set up a program that grabs recent postings in a group and reposts them to non-posters. This along with an automatic posting of incoming messages from non-usenet could all be handled without a moderator having to constantly thrash through 10 articles a month. Now that is true ease. [Of course those people off usenet have to suffer with the gateway bottleneck, but that is probably the best they can get short of joining usenet.] > >Certainly it is possible to answer queries and stimulate discussion without > >forcing all of it to go through you first. > > > I agree, but with moderation there is one answer written once, not 30 or > 40 times. Again, you seem to opt for high noise and repetition vs. > conservation of resources. Sounds like you are mistaking comp.sys.masscomp for rec.arts.sf-lovers . I am all for conserving resources (or more precisely, in getting maximum utility out of what exists), but don't see this as a justification for moderation. Elsewhere (in this group) I have shown how the net could be modified such that the flow is kept within the resources available without introducing the gross inefficiency and inappropriateness of moderation. -------------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu) Moderation is a horrible thing, Lady Hunstanton. Nothing succeeds like excess. from: A Woman of No Importance Oscar O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (1854-1900)
wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) (05/29/87)
In article <242@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP writes: > >No. I am saying that I would love to see these messages. I personally >do not believe all this hypothetical noise exists. The group just has >too little in the way of postings to give one the feeling that it is >in desparate need of moderation. I second lifting moderation. Here are a few more reasons: 1) I have posted several articles to the newsgroup (requesting help on various items, offering help on others) and have never seen them come back. Either the moderator is killing them or my postings are not getting to him (might account for the lack of traffic?). I'm mailing through philabs, which should have a valid path. 2) Again, the number of messages are so small that moderation is not going to affect much. We have about 12 Masscomps here in this building, mine is the only registered machine and only 2 others even get the news. Because the machine is targeted for a data acquisition market, many of them do not get on the net at all. This leads to few postings. 3) Perhaps lifting moderation would encourage people to post more? We certainly could use more information, <entity> knows that Masscomp doesn't want to provide it. -- Michael R. Wayne Voice: (313) 322-3986 | philabs \ Working at (but not employed by) Ford Motor Company | pyramid !fmsrl7!wayne | ihnp4!mb2c /
sob@cortex.UUCP (06/08/87)
In article <891@fmsrl7.UUCP> wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) writes: > > 1) I have posted several articles to the [masscomp] newsgroup (requesting > help on various items, offering help on others) and have never > seen them come back. Either the moderator is killing them or my > postings are not getting to him (might account for the lack of > traffic?). I'm mailing through philabs, which should have a > valid path. The moderator (me) is not killing ANY postings UNLESS they are repetative. I don't like noise, but I do like submissions. I would suggest you try a loopback test with soma to see if you CAN get mail here. I'd love to have your submissions. I know that sites near philabs can reach me since one of the user group officers also posts through philabs. I don't know why you are having a problem. Perhaps you should mail them directly to masscomp@soma.uucp (or masscomp%soma.UUCP@rice.edu). I just looked back in the archives and indeed no articles reached me from you. Please try again! > 2) Again, the number of messages are so small that moderation is > not going to affect much. We have about 12 Masscomps here in this > building, mine is the only registered machine and only 2 others > even get the news. Because the machine is targeted for a data > acquisition market, many of them do not get on the net at all. > This leads to few postings. This is a very different arguement to the one offered by webber@rutgers. He suggested that the Masscomp is like most 68000 boxes and posting should go to comp.sys.workstations. I agree with your arguement, but I felt that having the group moderated would make news group creation easier. Would you rather not have the group at all and use comp.sys.workstations? > > 3) Perhaps lifting moderation would encourage people to post more? > We certainly could use more information, <entity> knows that > Masscomp doesn't want to provide it. There is no evidence of this. The only conclusive evidence about the effect of moderation deals with the reduction of noise and slowness of processing by the moderator and the mail system. Reduction of noise is a big win. Moderator processing is definately a problem. >-- >Michael R. Wayne Voice: (313) 322-3986 | philabs \ >Working at (but not employed by) Ford Motor Company | pyramid !fmsrl7!wayne > | ihnp4!mb2c / Stan uucp:{shell,rice,seismo}!soma!sob Opinions expressed here Olan domain:sob@rice.edu or sob@soma.bcm.tmc.edu are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)790-9004 noone else's.