phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (11/02/85)
Have you ever seen someone posting a question on the net receive 20 or
30 followups to the effect of "ha ha you fool, James Tiptree *is* a
woman"? I know I have. Less common is for someone to post a question
and request replies by mail only, which will be summarized. But it
does happen. And when it does, the signal to noise ratio is very high.
I wish more people would summarize.
What this leads to is viewing the summary process as a kind of mini
mod group with the moderator being the original requester. A very
specific interest area is defined, and people *mail* their input.
Then the "moderator" eliminates duplicates and posts. And I think it
works well.
Perhaps if people thought of mod groups as being analogous to summarys
there would be less resistance and fear of censorship.
--
The number of California lottery tickets sold is greater than
the number of people in the United States of America.
Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.comcc-06@ucbcory.BERKELEY.EDU (Ilya Goldberg) (11/03/85)
In article <5680@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >Less common is for someone to post a question >and request replies by mail only, which will be summarized. But it >does happen. And when it does, the signal to noise ratio is very high. >I wish more people would summarize. > >What this leads to is viewing the summary process as a kind of mini >mod group with the moderator being the original requester. A very >specific interest area is defined, and people *mail* their input. >Then the "moderator" eliminates duplicates and posts. And I think it >works well. > >Perhaps if people thought of mod groups as being analogous to summarys >there would be less resistance and fear of censorship. Maybe there should be a newsgroup created just for these 'summaries' and the person summarizing could post a message announcing the posting of his summary to the original newsgroup. Sort of like net.sources but for summaries. Ilya ...!ucbvax!ilya ilya@ucb-vax.BERKELEY.EDU
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (11/06/85)
> What this leads to is viewing the summary process as a kind of mini mod > group with the moderator being the original requester. A very specific > interest area is defined, and people *mail* their input. Then the > "moderator" eliminates duplicates and posts. And I think it works well. > /* Written 12:07 pm Nov 2, 1985 by phil@amdcad.UUCP in > ccvaxa:net.news */ ---------- The problem is turnaround time. Any question with time value is much better off getting multiple answers directly submitted (which may start appearing at the questioner's site within hours) than waiting for answers to go up to a moderator and back out to the net (which may take two weeks). I think moderated lists are a very good idea for media where mail is delivered in reasonable time (like the Arpanet) and a much less good idea where delivery time is unpredictable and potentially very unreasonable. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece