mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (11/20/89)
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >So, who's going to venture forth with the montly posting for >alt.sources/alt.sources.d? As one of this scheme's many proposers, I have one thing to say: It won't work. People unthinkingly reply to source articles. People wander in and out of groups (especially when they're looking for something). People just plain forget. It's too bad the News software doesn't let you cross-post an article after the fact. (That way, a "moderator" of alt.sources.only could send out "linkto" messages to cross-post alt.sources articles once s/he decided they were really sources.)[*] Failing that, if you folks are really that keen on have a sources only alt group, what about that plan [I] proposed a while ago wherein someone regularly posts message-ids of non-source articles, and code runs locally to zap them out of your .newsrc file (and/or spool directory)? [*] This could have other uses, too, for example a whole thread could be moved to another group if someone decides that readers there would be interested in it, as well. And there are other digests groups (which is what the long-contemplated a.s.o is) which could benefit from this mechanism w/out increasing net.traffic significantly. -- void *Wayne_Mesard(); Mesard@BBN.COM BBN, Cambridge, MA
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (11/21/89)
In article <48495@bbn.COM> mesard@BBN.COM (Wayne Mesard) writes: >>So, who's going to venture forth with the montly posting for >>alt.sources/alt.sources.d? > >As one of this scheme's many proposers, I have one thing to say: > > It won't work. > >People unthinkingly reply to source articles. People wander in and >out of groups (especially when they're looking for something). People >just plain forget. ... It doesn't have to work 100%. The idea is to reduce misposting. Any significant contribution helps. Moreover any number of potential posters (source and discussion) who don't quite understand which group is for what, or what this crazy net is all about, are too timid to actually mispost and make us notice them; they just move on to the next thing. They too would benefit from a Welcome/Frequently Asked Questions posting. I think adding these (on 30-day expire) to most "important" groups would go down as the most useful net.development of the year. >Failing that, if you folks are really that keen on have a sources only >alt group, what about that plan [I] proposed a while ago wherein someone >regularly posts message-ids of non-source articles, and code runs >locally to zap them out of your .newsrc file (and/or spool directory)? The idea is not to suppress discussion, it is to cultivate it in the proper place. >[*] This could have other uses, too, for example a whole thread could be >moved to another group if someone decides that readers there would be >interested in it, as well. And there are other digests groups (which is >what the long-contemplated a.s.o is) which could benefit from this >mechanism w/out increasing net.traffic significantly. The two problems with moving threads are (1) or [a] it's nontrivial from the news-database standpoint, if you want to keep logging and expire and such happy, and {B} or -ii.- you play havoc with users' newsrc files. Not to mention that anyone who DOESN'T perform the move in synchronized fashion will continue to post to the old group. Wotta mess. That's why there's no substitute for education. You never achieve perfection, but you do good with each and every attempt. -- "A man came into the the office one day and said he \|/ Tom Neff was a sailor. We cured him of that." - Mark Twain, -O- tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET on his days as a doctor's apprentice in California. /|\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff