[news.groups] comp.benchmarks

de5@STC06.CTD.ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) (08/17/90)

In article <AGLEW.90Aug16185619@dual.crhc.uiuc.edu> aglew@dual.crhc.uiuc.edu writes:
>Eugene Miya writes:
>>Dave Sill proposes a comp.benchmark.

Actually, it's comp.benchmarks.

>>This might be a good idea, but in my opinion, only if the group is moderated.

My position on the moderation of comp.benchmarks is:

    o I don't think it'll be necessary since this is a comp.* group,
      rather than, say, talk.*.  The technical nature of the group,
      combined with the generally high level of computing background
      on the net, and further combined with self moderation as seen in
      other comp.* groups when innapropriate material such as
      marketing hype is posted will be sufficient.

    o Moderated groups are slower than unmoderated groups.  I have yet
      to see a moderated group with a turnaround approaching that of
      unmoderated groups.  With all due respect to our overworked and
      underpaid moderators, I'm not sure the increase in signal-to-
      noise ratio is worth the delay.  When I appeal to the net for
      help, I generally need it as soon as possible.

    o Moderated groups are harder to use than unmoderated groups.
      There are two reasons for this:  First, many sites are not
      properly configured to allow posting to moderated sites.  Sure,
      they ought to be, but they aren't.  Second, cross-posting to
      moderated newsgroups isn't reliable: some moderators allow it,
      others don't.

    o Moderation can always be added later if turns out to be
      absolutely necessary.  "But what if the vote to convert it
      fails?"  Then it wasn't absolutely necessary in the first place.

>Conversely, a moderator would be useful for the more staid side of
>benchmarking: reporting new results, theoretical questions,
>announcements of availability, and so on.  But I doubt that there
>would be enough traffic to make it worthwhile...

Agreed.  But perhaps a hybrid aproach would work.  Why not have a
`moderator' in an unmoderated group?  Someone with the time and
inclination could assume the position of unofficial moderator and
tabulate results, make announcements, even maintain archives.  His
postings could be distinguished by the format of the Subject line,
e.g., "Subject: MOD: New Dhrystone Results".  It could work.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)		These are my opinions.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems
Workstation Support