webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) (04/26/87)
In article <269@tropix.UUCP>, mjl@tropix.UUCP (Mike Lutz) writes: >In article <522@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes: > > > >Moderation does not mean quality improvement, it just means that you > >end up with what the moderator thinks is the good stuff. ... > > In my experience, the information content in all the moderated groups > is significantly higher than in their unmoderated brethren. What is > more, the information itself is of much higher quality. The classic > example is mod.sources vs. net.sources: the simple fact that It is odd that you should mention net.sources and mod.sources. It was exactly the realization that we were loosing net.sources (according to the note of the moderator of the new comp.sources.d) that made me feel things had just gotten out of hand. That we have lost the quick distribution of program sources was the proverbial straw looking for a camel. > an identifiable individual will actually *try* the code has led to > significantly higher quality in the former vis-a-vis the latter. I Incidently, from what I have read, the new moderator of comp.sources will not try out the code. He claims he is only interested in making sure that all submissions are program texts (according to a message that appeared in the associated discussion group). So the difference in quality that you claim (but that I never saw) is destined to pass away due to the moderation of the previously unmoderated group -- ironic, huh? Net.sources gains a bottleneck and mod.sources looses it's claimed quality control. > scan net.sources for the occasional jewel in the manure; I archive > the moderated group because the contributions are almost guaranteed Sigh. Most people know that good ideas grow in manure. In concrete, you get only pale shadows from the neighboring garden. > to be top-notch. I think it is psychologically easier to drop > half-baked code you knocked-off yesterday into net.sources. By extension, I always figured it was a matter of choosing to share with people who were capable of judging code for themselves versus sharing with people who had to rely on a moderator. Also, doubtless many people would be puzzled as to what service the moderator was supplying that was worth the inconvenience he so often causes. > it is easier to drop half-baked ideas into an unmoderated discussion > group. Actually just the opposite. You are much more likely to get massively flamed and held up to public ridicule on an unmoderated group than on a moderated group. On the other hand, flames are sometimes the best way to bake a pbi. You might liken using a moderated group after you have used an unmoderated group to using a batch machine after you had used a timesharing machine. Clearly, not progress. But cards do give some people a feeling of security. -------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaorde N O O
sob@academ.UUCP (Stan Barber) (05/04/87)
In article <192@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes: > >It is exactly the realization that we were loosing net.sources (according to >the note of the moderator of the new comp.sources.d) that made me feel >things had just gotten out of hand. comp.sources.d is not moderated to my knowledge. comp.sources.unix and comp.sources.misc are. comp.sources.wanted is not. Please get the information right! [On code sent via mod.sources vs. net.sources] >I always figured it was a matter of choosing to share with people who >were capable of judging code for themselves versus sharing with people >who had to rely on a moderator. Also, doubtless many people would be >puzzled as to what service the moderator was supplying that was worth >the inconvenience he so often causes. > I don't know what kind of time you have to evaulate sources sent over the net. You must have much more than I do. I have megabytes of net.sources that are waiting for spare time to be evaulated. Generally, I try the mod.sources stuff first and most of the time (>90%) it works. I cannot say that about net.sources stuff. Also, you say nothing about the mod.sources archive services. I guess that is an unimportant service offered by the moderator. >-------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaz!webber) Stan Barber -- Stan uucp:{killer,rice,hoptoad}!academ!sob Opinions expressed here Olan domain:sob@rice.edu are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)790-9004 noone else's.