reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (07/06/85)
Those interested in the ongoing debate on how Usenet should evolve (Stargate,
nuking net.flame, moderated newsgroups, kicking sites off the net, newsgroup
proliferation (hi rlr!), etc.) might find an article in the most recent
Communications of the ACM (July 85) interesting. The article is titled
"Structuring Computer-Mediated Communications Systems to Avoid Information
Overload", by Starr Roxanne Hiltz and Murray Turoff. The systems they discuss
are slightly different from Usenet, but most of their observations apply.
Briefly, they seem to favor using the computer to do some filtering (in
particular by keeping the discussions/participants divided into reasonably
sized groups), multiple levels of control over what is seen for different
levels of user experience, societal pressure to keep "outlaws" under control,
and avoidance of throwing stuff out because some feel it to be "junk". If I
read correctly, they would oppose removing a group like net.flame or preventing
certain people/sites from posting. Their fundamental argument is that it is
inappropriate to draw analogies from postal systems or phone systems. They
also have something interesting to say about user perceptions of "overload".
The article seems to me particularly well timed, and I urge interested parties
to read and interpret it for themselves.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
soon to be reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherlauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (07/09/85)
Unfortunately, these studies tend to look at much more limited systems than we're dealing with here, and usually systems where everybody is paying for virtually everything right up front. (Compuserve is a typical model). Usenet represents a unique entity with unique problems--partly technical, partly sociological. But as new sites continue to join Usenet, and each site has the ability to broadcast anything and everything to every other site, the sheer traffic volume continues to make other "services" look like microbes next to a mountain in comparison... --Lauren--
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/10/85)
In article <6257@ucla-cs.ARPA> reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP writes: >Those interested in the ongoing debate on how Usenet should evolve (Stargate, >nuking net.flame, moderated newsgroups, kicking sites off the net, newsgroup >proliferation (hi rlr!), etc.) might find an article in the most recent >Communications of the ACM (July 85) interesting. The article is titled >"Structuring Computer-Mediated Communications Systems to Avoid Information >Overload", by Starr Roxanne Hiltz and Murray Turoff. I second the nomination. Well thought out and an interesting perspective. They thought things out a lot more than Denning did in his discussion of Electronic mail a few years ago. > The systems they discuss >are slightly different from Usenet, but most of their observations apply. Actually, their system is significantly different from Usenet. The observations work to some degree, but there are changes that need to be kept in mind. o It is geographically restricted The geographical restrictions means they don't need to worry about the phone bill and cost issue of transporting data from one place to another. If I didn't have to pay (and justify) phone bills, I'd be on their side about letting the user filter things his way. I believe that anyway, as long as my phone costs stay reasonable. o the system discussed doesn't have the multi-organizational structure of USENET -- it seems to be under the complete control of the New Jersey Institute of Technology. o It seems to be designed to run under homogenous hardware and software. These two points have a lot of ramifications. If you are under a single organizational structure, you have control to make sure that software is kept up to date and bug free. You have a known organizational structure to take care of problems (both technological and rogue user). The homogenous hardware/software lets you build a system that takes advantage of what you have instead of worrying about being compatible to 30 different things and using the lowest common denominator. >If I >read correctly, they would oppose removing a group like net.flame or preventing >certain people/sites from posting. That seems to be an appropriate assumption, but I also would like to point out they don't need to worry about phone bills and they have significantly better filtering mechanisms than we do -- keyword support, moderators, and many other things that simply haven't been implemented or used to any great extent on USENET. It happens to be quite difficult to filter out unwanted messages (even with rn) effectively right now because the information people need to do that filtering isn't easily accessible. >The article seems to me particularly well timed, and I urge interested parties >to read and interpret it for themselves. Yes, find it and read it. It helps give a perception of what we can do with USENET. But it isn't USENET, and some of their arguments don't translate cleanly. chuq -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Admirals, extoll'd for standing still, Or doing nothing with a deal of skill. -- William Cowper