preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (10/31/85)
There are two ways to improve the signal/noise ratio on the net: one is to reduce the amount of noise, the other is to increase the amount of signal. If we spent less time arguing about whether people should create new newsgroups and more time putting good stuff into them, it would be much easier to justify the cost to higher-ups. I think net.sources has moved about two notes with source code in them in the last week. The best way to guarantee the future of the net is NOT to cut out all the non-technical material. That will just reduce the readership/writership, probably below critical mass. What we need to do is make the net demonstrably worth the cost. That means people have to post things to *.sources, things that are clearly useful, well documented, and reliable. That means people have to respond correctly to requests for help in net.unix-wizards and net.unix. Think of the time you spend polishing things before posting them to net.sources and the time you spend researching and verifying your answers to net questions as the cost of a subscription. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (10/31/85)
It has been proposed, by a number of people, that the non-technical newsgroups should be eliminated, not carried by the backbones, or made into moderated groups. I think moderated groups would be the best answer IN A DIFFERENT NETWORK. The turnaround time on Usenet is just too horrible to support discussion in a moderated group. A response to a posting can take four days to work upstream to the moderator and as many again to spread back out through the newsgroup. A non-moderated group starts showing responses as the original posting spreads (sometimes, to the confusion of notes, before the original posting). I think that immediacy is an important part of the nature of the livelier groups. I think the other suggestions, that these groups either cease to exist or be chopped into regional groups by breaking the backbone links, would hurt the net. They are an important part of the net for many readers, and the technical value of the net derives in large part from the number of readers. The net reaches many sites because one or two people at those sites are sufficiently interested in being connected that they agitate and push and do the work necessary to get connected. Reduce the incentive to participate, by reducing the diversity of the net, and you will have fewer people willing to work to get connected and stay connected. I think breaking the backbone links for these groups would reduce most them well below critical mass, the number of people needed to sustain discussion. It's a funny thing about evolution. The present shape of something which has evolved may be odd or ungainly or counterintuitive, but it is by definition better suited to survival than the forms that went before and died out. The net has alot of volume because it has a lot of people who want to say something. That desire to be heard is a large part of their reason for being on the net at all. I think we'd be a lot better off looking for ways to (a) encourage more signal and (b) reduce the cost of transmission than looking for ways to (c) reduce the noise. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (11/03/85)
> The turnaround time on Usenet is just too horrible to support discussion > in a moderated group. A response to a posting can take four days to work > upstream to the moderator [...] Mail is generally much faster than news. With optimized mail paths (now a reality because of pathalias) your message to the moderator will probably get there inside of a day. Even if you just invert the news "Path:" line, it won't be long before you reach a site that does path optimization for you. If you are really worried about speed, convince your SA to put your site on the backbone. If what you are saying is important enough, it will stand the test of time. If your message is so pointless as to become worthless if it gets delayed for a day or two, why bother posting it at all? > A non-moderated group starts showing responses as the original posting > spreads (sometimes [...] before the original posting). I think that > immediacy is an important part of the nature of the livelier groups. And an important part of the confusion and drivel. If an extra day's delay will keep things in chronological order, and filter out a lot of the reflex responses and other trash at the same time, it's worth it. -- Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy> System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (11/07/85)
> If what you are saying is important enough, it will stand the test of > time. If your message is so pointless as to become worthless if it > gets delayed for a day or two, why bother posting it at all? /* > Written 10:51 am Nov 3, 1985 by roy@phri.UUCP in > ccvaxa:net.news.group */ ---------- My note was posted 31 October. Roy's response arrived back here 7 November. Maybe it isn't possible to have contemporaneous discussions on the net at all. I guess I was spoiled by my original experience with this kind of net, using Plato notesfiles. Discussions in Plato notes are often real-time, with interaction from all over the country within minutes. There's a lot to be said for continuous connectivity. I still think moderated files are too slow for any subject area where discussion (as opposed to exposition, announcement, or promulgation) is to take place. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece