brian@ms.uky.edu (Brian Sturgill) (08/20/87)
I am having a problem getting responses to queries about the
availability of programs to meet need X. I have posted to
net.sources.wanted twice, and have received all of one reply. As this
was a request for leads to a general file manager for use by our
graduate school, a presumably commonly available package, I am
convienced that there is a severe problem with the way that source
groups are handled. In the "old" days of net.sources it is true that
there was alot of "noise", but one could post a request there, and after
throwing out the various flames, get a sizable number of responses to
question about program availability. Now the only time I get response is
if it falls in to a category which makes it appropriate for some
specific active newsgroup (comp.text, comp.unix.wizards, comp.windows.x).
Further, I have had problems with getting sources posted, I sent in
a nice set of mods to the recently posted "screen" program about a week
ago, it has still not made to the "public". "(Its available via anonymous
ftp to e.ms.uky.edu, though)"
I understand why people do not want "noise" in the source group... but
legitimate requests, and even replies about program availability are
at least as important as public-domain sources.
Which brings me to comp.sources.wanted, et. al. Do YOU read this?
I doubt it... I "do", but I read it with my finger very close to the space
bar... I might have responded to a total of 2 requests... It is not that
I am not a good sport, and don't want to help people, it is just that
I (like many) am busy, and thus having advance knowledge that
comp.sources.wanted does not contain "goodies" for me, I skip through.
Basically I feel that the whole concept does not work. The reason
that a group like comp.unix.wizards works is that most people reading,
have to read most messages in order to get benefit from the group,
and thus having understood the message, a fair percentage will help
when they can, as they too would want done for their postings.
In comp.sources.wanted there is no such compulsion, it is too easy
to "half-read" the subject, and hit space before it even dawns on
you what the person wants.
Proposed solution:
I don't necessarily mind having the comp.sources.unix group moderated,
but I do feel that requests and (if there is lots of interest),
replies about the availability of programs should be included.
A change in the Subject line when it is not a source should be
enough to keep those "archivers of all sources" happy. I also feel
that something should be done to speed up postings to a moderated group.
I have sympathy for the moderator, but part of it is that I feel he (or she)
does too much. I would hope that all that is done by a moderator is:
1) Check to see that the posting belongs in this group.
2) Classify it (the Subject line).
3) Post it.
Alas, I don't believe it is the case though.
(Sigh, now I wait for the flames)
Brian
------------------
Brian Sturgill System Manager
University of Kentucky Departments of Mathematical Sciences
brian@ms.uky.edu brian@ms.uky.csnet
{uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!brian brian@UKMA.BITNETsob@watson.tmc.edu (Stan Barber) (08/20/87)
It seems that people who WANT to fill requests for sources will read comp.sources.wanted and people who don't will not. Why FORCE those who don't want to read these requests to read them? [I do not mean to imply that I don't. In fact, I do read them and have responded to needs I could meet.] The requests ARE getting out. Let's keep them where it is easy to manage them. Stan Barber
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/25/87)
> I am having a problem getting responses to queries about the > availability of programs to meet need X... The real, underlying problem is simply that the people who might be able to answer such questions are not reading them, for whatever reason. If it was because they were ignorant of the existence of comp.sources.wanted, then moving the traffic to some more obtrusive location might solve the problem. HOWEVER, by far the most probable reason why they are not reading the questions is because they don't WANT to read them. Moving the requests to a more conspicuous location will only annoy said people and make them find another way of filtering out what they consider trash. It will NOT make your requests more visible, except very temporarily! This is a dumb idea and should not be done. And WHY don't people want to read such requests? Probably because there are a lot of them, they aren't very interesting, they seldom ask for what a particular reader can supply, one doesn't get paid to read them, and life is too short already. Unfortunately for the posters, these are legitimate and convincing reasons. Let's be blunt: the only way you are going to convince people to read the steady stream of requests in comp.sources.wanted is to reward them for it. Some people may read it out of sheer altruism, but that only goes so far. One might suspect that software companies already keep an eye on the group, but that may not be much help depending on what you're after. I see no genuine solution that doesn't involve you paying for the advice you get. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (08/28/87)
In article <8482@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: [about requests in comp.sources.wanted] > And WHY don't people want to read such requests? Probably because there > are a lot of them, they aren't very interesting, they seldom ask for what > a particular reader can supply, one doesn't get paid to read them, and life > is too short already. Unfortunately for the posters, these are legitimate > and convincing reasons. I'm not so sure about this. I read comp.sources.wanted and try to help. Generally, I only respond if the requesting site is within 3-4 hops of me, because I've always assumed that if it's farther away, someone else's response will get there first and mine will be redundant and a waste of net bandwidth. (As a leaf site, I worry about such things.) A partial solution to this problem is having a fair number of autoarchive sites, i.e., archive sites with filters set up that will automagically mail out a source file based on the Subject: line in incoming mail. Rich Salz is working on something along these lines, I believe. (Yes, I'm willing to act as such a site if the autoarchive software is available. I'm not sure how happy the sites upstream of me would be about this.) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Mack (from Mack's Bedroom :<) McDonnell Douglas-Inco, Inc. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed 8201 Greensboro Drive are my own and in no way reflect the McLean, VA 22102 views of McDonnell Douglas or its (703)883-3911 subsidiaries. ...!seismo!sundc!hadron!inco!mack ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
rsalz@bbn.com (Richard Salz) (08/28/87)
>A partial solution to this problem is having a fair number of autoarchive >sites, i.e., archive sites with filters set up that will automagically >mail out a source file based on the Subject: line in incoming mail. Rich >Salz is working on something along these lines, I believe... Not quite. Brian Reid has written a fairly good set of shell scripts that do this, the "mod.recipes archive server." If you send a message saying "help" to archive-server@decwrl.dec.com (or to {ucbvax,sun,pyramid,decvax, cbosgd,allegra}!decwrl!archive-server) you'll get info that will help you get the sources to set up your own server. Brian's stuff is used by several sites around the net. I once wrote a program to be fed mod.sources articles and archive them based on information in the header. It would automatically make tarfiles, compress things, etc. I owe the net a new version that handles all the different source groups who use a variant of my post program with slightly different headers. I'm real behind in this, sorry. /r$ -- For comp.sources.unix stuff, mail to sources@uunet.uu.net.