msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) (01/01/70)
> > To Greg: The whole point of keywords is to allow greater user selectivity. > > For optimal use, you need poster-pays news with "collect" features. > > This will effectively kill 95% of the net. I do not have the authority > to spend HAO's money for this type of thing, and I'm not sure I would > .... > I think 95% of the users would drop off the net if they had to pay to post > articles. The European usenet works on a pay as you go basis. It seems to be thriving. I think the way it works is as follows: each site pays a fixed sum each month to receive and post news. I don't know how they determine the cost. Each site also pays for all mail that they send out. The details aren't important. The point is that making people pay can work. It is unlikely to doom the net. Mind you payment has been the norm in Europe since usenet started so there is no "they should keep giving it to me" mentality to overcome. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@saber.UUCP, sun!saber!msc@decwrl.ARPA ...{decwrl,ucbvax}!sun!saber!msc, ...{amdcad,ihnp4}!saber!msc
david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (09/21/85)
My data base class was rather boring today so I spent a little
time (an hour maybe) thinking about K-news.
I have one question ...
How are we supposed to keep up the arpa
gateways if we throw away the newsgroups?
Otherwise it looks as if it'll help a lot in specifying an audience
for your postings and specifying what you want to read. That is,
it'll help if people actually go and use it properly.
--
--- David Herron
--- ARPA-> ukma!david@ANL-MCS.ARPA
--- UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!david
--- {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma!david
Hackin's in me blood. My mother was known as Miss Hacker before she married!woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/03/85)
> But in order for all this to work, you must still rely on posters > to label thier postings with the proper keywords. What's to prevent some > malicious type person from labeling a particularly offensive posting > with "Keywords: sex UNIX pontiac"? Nothing, of course. This is only ONE problem with keyword-based news: deliberate bad keywords. We see this type of thing with newsgroups, too, where articles get posted in inappropriate places (such as anti-gay flames in net.motss). I think it would be much worse when the number of "groups" (i.e. keywords) increases virtually without bound. Let's put it this way: suppose I think a particular issue is VERY important, and I post my $0.02 worth and label it "information". Someone else who disagrees with me might think it should be laballed "opinion", or even "flame". I could do this deliberately, to try and get more people to read my article (how many people would actually READ an article that admits right off to being a flame?). This could also occur accidentally; i.e. I could totally non-maliciously label my article as information when someone else perceives it as a flame. Just look at the furor that started from a totally innocent (at the time) remark about emotions and choice in net.singles. I bet poor Gypsy never realized she was posting something that would offend so many people. That is just ONE example. That's the second problem with keyword-based news: accidental, or non-malicious, incorrect keywords. Experience has shown that users CANNOT BE COUNTED ON to choose correct keywords. They can't even choose correct newsgroups. What happens when we have thousands of keywords instead of a couple hundred newsgroups? The third problem was conceptual problems with keyword-based systems, i.e. you can miss articles you wanted to see and/or be shown articles you didn't want even when "correct" keywords are chosen, because of problems inherent in keyword-based systems (e.g. "phone" vs. "phones" vs. "telephone", etc.) Lauren already addressed this issue in a previous article. Keyword-based news is a BAD idea. It only INCREASES the problems associated with newsgroups. --Greg
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/06/85)
In article <1787@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > Nothing, of course. This is only ONE problem with keyword-based news: >deliberate bad keywords. We see this type of thing with newsgroups, too, >where articles get posted in inappropriate places (such as anti-gay flames >in net.motss). I think it would be much worse when the number of "groups" >(i.e. keywords) increases virtually without bound. Let's put it this way: >suppose I think a particular issue is VERY important, and I post my $0.02 >worth and label it "information". Someone else who disagrees with me might >think it should be laballed "opinion", or even "flame". I could do this >deliberately, to try and get more people to read my article (how many people >would actually READ an article that admits right off to being a flame?). To clear up. My original suggestion was never anything like what Lauren tirades against. It's more like what Greg is tirading against here. So to Lauren - I'm not talking about "dialogue" type keywords here, although those could of course be put on top of any system if users wanted it because it has little to do with the poster. To Greg: The whole point of keywords is to allow greater user selectivity. For optimal use, you need poster-pays news with "collect" features. As I have explained before, in such a system the poster pays for news transmission, but most users agree to accept articles they are interested in "collect". This means that the readers control the net rather than the yellers. And yellers must understand this too. After all, who are they yelling for but the readers? If you see somebody abusing keyword choices, with proper software you are only one command from putting a black mark against them. Software could be set up so that people are excluded from reaching you collect after any given number of black marks, including one. This is what it's all about. If you mess up the net, you are slowly rejected from it by attrition. And this means that people will come to moderators for their services, not revile them as censors. You could have both selecting moderators who prepare lists of articles to be sent to subscribers and moderators who simply choose keywords for posters. For those who like automated systems, these could be implemented and activated. Keywords and poster-pays make the net a net of individuals, and the "will of the net" becomes the aggregate (NOT majority) of these individual opinions. Limited numbers of newsgroups require "net authorities" and "net consensus" which are utter garbage. Who needs all this crap about "this group should exist but that one shouldn't." "This group is too high volume, that group is too low volume." Who are you to say? >This could also occur accidentally; i.e. I could totally non-maliciously >label my article as information when someone else perceives it as a flame. That's why moderators who select keywords for you, automated or living, would be useful. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/07/85)
> To Greg: The whole point of keywords is to allow greater user selectivity. > For optimal use, you need poster-pays news with "collect" features. This will effectively kill 95% of the net. I do not have the authority to spend HAO's money for this type of thing, and I'm not sure I would even if I COULD. I'd have to justify every single article to management, whereas now we only have to justify the net as a whole. As for spending my own money, I haven't got it. If that's what you expected, then you've just turned the net into a much smaller group of computer aristocrats. We already have that type of thing, it's called CompuServe. I think 95% of the users would drop off the net if they had to pay to post articles. That would make it NOT WORTH IT to pay to stay on the net. The variety of people posting here is one thing that makes it unique. Surely we can come up with a solution that won't eliminate that. I'll wait to see how Chuqui's new system works. I'm skeptical, but if he proves me wrong, so much the better. I do acknowledge him for at least making an attempt to DO something. If you are talking about paying with "funny money", i.e. some sort of accounting system, I don't think that's practical, and besides, it could probably be gotten around by hacker/forgers anyway. I could just create 20 user ID's for myself here. (Obviously, I'm not the only one with that privilege, nor WOULD I be likely to do so, but no doubt SOMEONE who felt unfairly censored would do it). > That's why moderators who select keywords for you, automated or living, would > be useful. Two problems: 1) Who is going to pay them, or who will be willing to volunteer for such a monumental task, and 2) What if I don't like a particular moderator (and vice versa) and he labels all my opinions as "flames", and so no one reads them? What recourse would I have? I have no objection to new ideas, but I really think this one is impractical. If someone (like Chuq) comes up with such a system and it works, proving me wrong, fine; but right now I'm not convinced that keyword news would do ANYTHING to alleviate our current problems, and might even make some of them worse. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY "I don't know, but I've been told, it's hard to run with the weight of gold On the other hand I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead"
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (10/10/85)
> /* Written 2:47 pm Oct 7, 1985 by woods@hao.UUCP in ccvaxa:net.news > */ I think 95% of the users would drop off the net if they had to pay > to post articles. That would make it NOT WORTH IT to pay to stay on the > net. ---------- Huh? I'd bet that 90% of the net readership never posts anything, and therefore would bear not cost. Whether that's equitable is another question. For technical files the reader should pay, for amusement files the poster should pay. ---------- > Two problems: 1) Who is going to pay [indexing moderators], or who will > be willing to volunteer for such a monumental task, and 2) What if I > don't like a particular moderator (and vice versa) and he labels all my > opinions as "flames", and so no one reads them? What recourse would I > have? ---------- People would certainly volunteer. Think of all the newsletters, fanzines, and other volunteer publications in the world. Being the editor of something that other people read is a kick. Some people also get paid for it; maybe there will eventually be files you have to pay for, with decryption keys sent to registered readers. Some institutions might pay for people to spend some part of their time doing this kind of thing as part of their professional responsibilities. As to (2), if you don't like a particular moderator you either find another file, moderated by someone you DO like and covering the same area (there's no reason there should be only one source for material in a given area), or you volunteer yourself to start one. Items could be tagged with indexing by multiple indexers. Readers could then say "Show me things indexed under "Unix-wizards" by Editor-x or by both Editor-y and Editor-z." There should then be a mechanism for transporting indexing information to existing notes, so that additional indexers' input could be registered after a note had arrived. Different editors could put different indexing on the same article, too. Editor-x might think the note should be read both by people interested in workstations and by people interested in user interfaces, Editor-y might think it too specifically display oriented to send to the interfaces category. ---------- -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
ken@birtch.UUCP (Ken Brown x254) (10/17/85)
> > > To Greg: The whole point of keywords is to allow greater user selectivity. > > > For optimal use, you need poster-pays news with "collect" features. > > > > This will effectively kill 95% of the net. I do not have the authority > > to spend HAO's money for this type of thing, and I'm not sure I would > > .... > > I think 95% of the users would drop off the net if they had to pay to post > > articles. > > The European usenet works on a pay as you go basis. It seems to be thriving. > I think the way it works is as follows: each site pays a fixed sum each > month to receive and post news. I don't know how they determine the cost. > Each site also pays for all mail that they send out. > . > . > . That's great. But I have one question for you, WHO GETS THE MONEY? How will it get divied up? Do we pay out news feed, and they pay theirs', etc. like a great big PYRAMID scheme? I don't know who pays to have mail sent *everywhere* in the USA, from the west coast to the east coast, etc, but, those sites that are doing all the long distance calls are quite generous to the rest of us. If those sites couldn't support the cost of the phone bills, they could (and should) decide not to support the net on that basis. I.E. stop making those phone calls. I don't have any idea on how to keep multiple copies of articles off the net, but making each site *pay* to be on the net would make the sites that are dollar sensitive just drop off the net. Not all large companies, that can afford net costs, necessarily have people who will "follow the rules". They won't have too. Their company will pay for it.