mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/01/85)
The following statistics were derived from seismo's top 25 groups numbers:
Group Avg. rank by
Article Size Tot. Traffic
---------------------------------------------
net.sources.games 22.7 10
net.sources.mac 14.4 1
net.sources 6.2 2
net.origins 3.6 15
net.philosophy 3.3 6
net.politics.theory 3.2 9
net.abortion 2.8 18
net.religion.christian 1.9 22
net.politics 1.7 3
net.religion 1.7 14
net.micro.mac 1.4 4
net.flame 1.4 5
net.women 1.2 12
net.micro.atari 1.2 13
net.singles 1.2 23
net.movies 1.1 7
net.audio 1.1 15
net.micro.pc 1.1 19
net.lang.c 1.1 20
net.music 1.0 8
net.cooks 1.0 24
net.micro 0.9 21
net.sf-lovers 0.8 11
net.unix-wizards 0.8 17
net.unix 0.8 25
One thing that should be evident is that the ~.sources groups have become a
primary service of the net. A major cost of the system is distributing
software for Macs and for games. Notice also how far down the list the
other "technical" groups appear. Now, as a reader of many of the "junk"
groups, I can tell you that the reason why (for instance) net.philosophy is
so high up there is that there is almost always too much included text.
Now, to my mind there are essentially only three reasons for included text.
1) Because it's easier to quote than to summarize.
2) Because you want to make a point-by-point rebuttal.
3) Because you need some reference due to short expiration time.
Personally, I have no use for the first, and netHistory has shown that the
rebuttal to most points is simply either "Oh yeah?" or "See above". As for
the third one, there seems to be a sort of vicious cycle here. Expiration
times shrink, inclusions grow, causing still shorter expiration times. Most
of these groups need moderation to increase the stylistic quality of the
submissions.
Now take a look at SF-lovers. Lots of little articles. Just last week we
had 15 (and counting) people posting that James Tiptree was a woman. This
kind of repeat posting is common in net.movies too. So maybe these need
moderation too.
"Gee," you say, "That sounds like your suggesting that the whole net needs
moderation."
You catch on quick, Kemosabe.
I will contend that much of the problems with the net today have to do with
wholesale disregard for net-ettiquette. the only way around this is either
moderated groups or unilateral action on the part of individual sites to
turn off certain groups and even individuals. Censorship (as I've repeated
oft before) is a dead issue now. More sites are going do as Rich Kulawiec
has done, and examine with a jaundiced eye what they are passing around.
Here endeth the opinion.
Charley Wingate