jj@alice.UUCP (03/07/85)
>From allegra!bellcore!decvax!cwruecmp!atvax!ncoast!bsa Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 >> Article <3429@alice.UUCP>, from jj@alice.UUCP >+---------------- >| I have been slowling abandoning the net, but I really don't think >| that the reasons are the ones that Chuq advances. It's my feeling >| that the SNR (signal to noise ratio) of the net is slowly sinking >| to zero, and the utility is following accordlingly. >+---------------- > >Both. People tend to use newsgroups to do what the 'n' key (and rn's >'kill' functionality) are supposed to do. That's a funny way to look at it. I think the 'n' key is supposed to be there to ignore articles you don't really care about. It seems to me that the reason for ORGANIZATION is to mitigate the need for the user to have to process myriads of titles that he or she is not interested in. I'm curious why you feel that people should have to take such a more active part in rejecting uninteresting and/or noisy information. Part of the problem here, I think, is that you don't accept(in this part of your article) that the problem is noise, which is curious in light of your position on moderation, eventually following... >+---------------- >| .........................................................I think the lack >| of MORE, and better organized newsgroups is the real problem. Eliminating >| newsgroups will, in the short run, provide even MORE traffic for interested >| people to deal with. In the long run, it will eliminate new discussions >| and subjects because of precidence. >+---------------- > >No. Fewer newsgroups, plus "rn" for KILL files, makes for fewer postings >to multiple newsgroups. The newsgroup names are chosen to mark out basic >areas. People in net.hardware who don't want to hear about, say, the 68000, >can put "MC68000" (or 680x0, etc.) in their KILL files. "rn", being much >much more user friendly than readnews, should replace readnews anyway. Frankly-- You say, "No!", but you don't say why you say no. ASSUMING that you have (as we currently do not) a reasonably heirarchy, you can put any message ONCE in an appropriate level newsgroup. Deleting newsgroups only requires that there be MORE traffic filtered, both by the machine and by the user. Putting in "kill files" doesn't solve anything, since it only kills what you've had to put IN it in the first place. A reasonable, and RICH heirarchy will result in there being no data to filter in the first place. Making the whole net dependant on a necessarily shaky and expensive (in machine time) filtering operation isn't very productive, and will only cause more load problems in the end machines. >+---------------- >| 1) There exists no clear, defined, accepted, proposed, >| or even stated purpose for netnews. There is no overall document >| that explains how it works, why it works, and what it's existance >| depends on. Make one. (No, I won't volunteer, I'm too controversial, >| and I don't have the time to do it RIGHT, either.) >+---------------- > >I'm writing one now. As to whether it'll be useable or not... (I have >a habit of not saying what I consider to be obvious, but others do not >find so.) I'm curious. Why you? You clearly have a biased opinion of the net, at least to me, and I really wonder about what historical basis you will base your "document" on. <I'm pointing out here, partially, just why such a document does not yet exist.> Please reread my article for the points on "cooperation" and "volunteer". They are important points that your responses seem to ignore completely. You seem to regard the net user as a faceless individual who must have their thinking done FOR them, rather than BY them. >+---------------- >| moderate behavior (I almost said moderation. I know better!). >+---------------- > >I don't know why. Moderation is also necessary to save this net, unless >these people would rather start running their own subnets in order to >keep their "freedom". (...and then watch them do 180-degree turns!) Please separate your opinions and do not represent them as accepted fact. It will spare me the effort of writing an article that contests you, and it will eventually spare you a lot of controversy. Editorial cheap shot. That's your opinion. It's clearly not accepted as fact, and I don't SEE it as fact. "Moderation is also necessary to save this net" just doesn'd hold water in any way, shape or form. We clearly have a problem with abusers, and the net MUST develop the maturity (which it has had at several times in the past) to deal with abusers withOUT generating a cure that's worse than the problem. There is no reason to accept that moderation is essential in any way, shape, or form. It is clear that there is a need (and will continue to be ) for some moderated groups, like net.general, for instance... There is also a clear need for SUMMARIZED versions of some newsgroups, at this point, or so I feel. <Remember mod.ber, a noble experiment that failed due to outside factors?> There just isn't a clear need to moderate every group, or to exclude all non-moderated groups from the net. ---- Please, people, if we can't even agree to meet on the level to discuss WHAT we're going to do, then we're just not going to get anything done, and the net may well *S*N*A*P*, and Dr. Scott's life (oops, wrong show)... In any case, I think that this discussion has brought up a lot of points, and that all of them have some basis in reality. As in any real world problem, there is no one panacea (moderation, removing newsgroups, adding newsgroups...), there is a SYNTHESIS that may well include elements of all solutions, in accordance with the actual problem. ----- EDITORIAL--- It's my feeling that we don't need to delete any groups. We DO need to make something to educate the NEW USER so that he/she can easily tell where to place an article, query, etc. Gene's newsgroup list is a start, but as it typical with all familiar documentation, if you can find it, you don't need it. We need a collection of the charters for EACH newsgroup (including such oddities as net.flame, net.woebegon, net.rec.*, etc) rather than a drastic realignment and reduction of newsgroups that will result in ALL users being unsure where to put their articles. We DO need some outlet for those who want to "flame". It's clear that some subjects will engender emotions in even the most reasonable people that they will want to let you know just HOW they feel once in a while, and net.flame is a better solution than just forcing the issue into net.sources, net.singles, net.news.group, net.politics, net.abortion, etc, which can, GIVEN COOPERATION (this ties back to the abuser comments) remain polite, if strained. Moderation clearly can't work in some of these same groups, because of the polarization that makes them so touchy in the first place. We also would like to see the net survive. I submit that the attitude of the net user is what must be changed, and that the structure of the net (which could, of course, undergo a good organization, some software changes, etc) is secondary, except in those places where it makes the new user absolutely likely to blunder. Consider my signature line: -- FESTINA LENTE "...rice is nice, that's what they say..." (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!alice!jj
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (03/08/85)
Raising the consciousness of the network is fine. I think it's a great idea. Tell people what the net is for (if we ever figure that out). Make sure the new users see the "how to use the net" docs. Great! But remember one thing. As the net grows, if only 1% of the users decide to ignore those rules and treat the net the way THEY want to (and we can bet on a lot more than 1%) that "little" percentage, in a growing network, can generate enough traffic to make the rest of the net useless. In fact, ONE PERSON could trivially generate enough traffic to bring the network to its knees from both a time and money standpoint. And remember that there will always be people out there who do such things for FUN, on PURPOSE. What's going to happen the first time that somebody decides it will be fun to post 30 or 40 meg of old netnews to the net again, broken up into lots of different messages and posted via different routes? Granted, people like this are rare. But it only takes one, or a few less "serious" offenders, to screw things up royally. You simply cannot act as if you'll be able to get EVERYONE to cooperate when it takes such a small percentage to cause trouble. It simply isn't realistic to expect 100% -- or even 95%, cooperation in a network with 10's or 100's of 1000's of users. --Lauren--
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (03/11/85)
> Article <3443@alice.UUCP>, from jj@alice.UUCP +---------------- | >Both. People tend to use newsgroups to do what the 'n' key (and rn's | >'kill' functionality) are supposed to do. | | That's a funny way to look at it. I think the 'n' key is supposed to be | there to ignore articles you don't really care about. It seems to me ----> Which is what I use "newsgroup!" in .newsrc for. | that the reason for ORGANIZATION is to mitigate the need for the | user to have to process myriads of titles that he or she is not | interested in. I'm curious why you feel that people should have to | take such a more active part in rejecting uninteresting and/or noisy | information. If they want to choose subjects, let them. Noise is the problem, and no news- group will ever clean it up. Despite net.flame, flames are rampant all over the net. And segregating everything off into its own newsgroup paves the way for "newsgroup prejudice" -- if site A decides it doesn't want to carry some newsgroup that for some reason must go through them (especially if they are a backbone site), no more newsgroup. In other words, if you make this change, Frank Adrian's article begins to become scary. In fact, your comment about "n" vs. newsgroups smacks rather loudly of it. I have posted a solution which allows for lots of newsgroups... by making them general subjects in fact, and not look like separate "nets" which could be blocked (an image which the current net presents to new users, as evidenced by newusers using "net" when they mean "newsgroup". | | >+---------------- | >| .........................................................I think the lack | >| of MORE, and better organized newsgroups is the real problem. Eliminating | >| newsgroups will, in the short run, provide even MORE traffic for interested | >| people to deal with. In the long run, it will eliminate new discussions | >| and subjects because of precidence. | >+---------------- | > | >No. Fewer newsgroups, plus "rn" for KILL files, makes for fewer postings | >to multiple newsgroups. | | Frankly-- You say, "No!", but you don't say why you say no. ASSUMING I meant that his view of it was wrong, based on my earlier discussion. Rather than fewer newsgroups lessening topics, PROVIDED that the reading tools are used correctly and fully, they simplify the subject spaces, so that one of the major problems -- multiple postings to multiple newsgroups -- is avoided. Selection is moved from the newsgroups to the subjects. | machine and by the user. Putting in "kill files" doesn't solve anything, | since it only kills what you've had to put IN it in the first place. | A reasonable, and RICH heirarchy will result in there being no | data to filter in the first place. Making the whole net dependant on a In other words, censoring newsgroups wholesale. Read my earlier point. We are, in case you have missed the earlier discussion, trying to AVOID this possibility, which will happen on its own if we don't fix it now. Or, if you mean newsgroup-as-unsubscribable-subject, read the "ug" description in the vnews documentation, as to why it is a two-character command. Then compare it to the rn idea of "kill files". (If the subject line doesn't describe the topic, it shouldn't be read anyway -- it's probably not of any real content.) | necessarily shaky and expensive (in machine time) filtering operation | isn't very productive, and will only cause more load problems in | the end machines. See above. Newsgroup selection already does this, subject selection would not change anything. In fact, "rn" takes fewer cycles WITH kill files than "readnews" does without. And I assure you, we are an end machine with news load problems. | >| or even stated purpose for netnews. There is no overall document | >| that explains how it works, why it works, and what it's existance | >| depends on. Make one. (No, I won't volunteer, I'm too controversial, | > | >I'm writing one now. As to whether it'll be useable or not... (I have | | I'm curious. Why you? You clearly have a biased opinion of the net, | at least to me, and I really wonder about what historical basis you will | base your "document" on. <I'm pointing out here, partially, just why | such a document does not yet exist.> Please reread my article for Precisely. Make one. Which I am trying to do. This document will be shown to Chuq and Lauren and whoever they show it to, and they will decide if it is to become a standard net document. | the points on "cooperation" and "volunteer". They are important points | that your responses seem to ignore completely. You seem to regard the | net user as a faceless individual who must have their thinking done | FOR them, rather than BY them. If they thought, the net wouldn't be so congested. Q.E.D. | >I don't know why. Moderation is also necessary to save this net, unless | >these people would rather start running their own subnets in order to | >keep their "freedom". (...and then watch them do 180-degree turns!) | | Please separate your opinions and do not represent them as | accepted fact. It will spare me the effort of writing an article | that contests you, and it will eventually spare you a lot of | controversy. And so we stay as we are, since we're so busy making the quibblers happy that we don't get a chance to fix the net. It was separated from the rest enough for anyone else. | | Editorial cheap shot. That's your opinion. It's clearly not accepted | as fact, and I don't SEE it as fact. "Moderation is also necessary | to save this net" just doesn'd hold water in any way, shape or form. Not full-blown ARPA moderation, I mean sending messages to offenders via mail to tell them not to, for example, post flames in net.sources. If this "doesn't hold water in any way, shape, or form", then the net is already dead. If the definition of "moderation" is the point of dispute, I submit that you do not understand what moderation is. ANY sort of control, even just mailed complaints about one's net actions, constitutes moderation of a sort. And this form already exists and is having an effect in a number of newsgroups. | We clearly have a problem with abusers, and the net MUST develop | the maturity (which it has had at several times in the past) to | deal with abusers withOUT generating a cure that's worse than | the problem. There is no reason to accept that moderation is | essential in any way, shape, or form. Okay, it's a problem of definition. Can we now consider the subject closed? | a need (and will continue to be ) for some moderated groups, like | net.general, for instance... So? We can block stonehenge out of net.general, but not Pascal religious wars out of net.lang.c? | | Please, people, if we can't even agree to meet on the level to discuss | WHAT we're going to do, then we're just not going to get anything | done, and the net may well *S*N*A*P*, and Dr. Scott's life (oops, | wrong show)... Right. And our debate was basically misunderstanding -- I SAID that I often forget to say what seems obvious to me. If something is still unclear, please let me know, preferably by mail and I will summarize. | there is a SYNTHESIS that may well include elements of all solutions, Precisely -- but knocking out one of the partial solutions doesn't help. | | We DO need some outlet for those who want to "flame". It's clear that | some subjects will engender emotions in even the most reasonable | people that they will want to let you know just HOW they feel once | in a while, and net.flame is a better solution than just | forcing the issue into net.sources, net.singles, | net.news.group, net.politics, net.abortion, etc BUT IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!! | | We also would like to see the net survive. I submit that | the attitude of the net user is what must be changed, and | that the structure of the net (which could, of course, undergo | a good organization, some software changes, etc) is secondary, | except in those places where it makes the new user absolutely | likely to blunder. The only way to change the user is to force it on him via the software. And even that won't work if you can't convince the system administrators to run 2.10.2 news, much less any new software. The only other way is Arpanet-style moderation -- which I would rather not see, thank you. --bsa -- Brandon Allbery, decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsa, ncoast!bsa@case.csnet (etc.) 6504 Chestnut Road Independence, Ohio 44131 +1 216 524 1416 -- CIS 74106,1032 -=> Does the Doctor make house calls? <=-