Path: utzoo!censor!becker!geac!jtsv16!uunet!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!wuarchive!texbell!vector!attctc!linimon From: linimon@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Mark Linimon) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Semi-moderated newsgroups Summary: further observations Message-ID: <10275@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 20 Nov 89 23:11:56 GMT References: <1989Nov19.223239.26100@algor2.algorists.com> Reply-To: linimon@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Mark Linimon) Followup-To: news.admin Distribution: usa Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx Lines: 37 In article <1989Nov19.223239.26100@algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: >[on semi-moderated groups] >One way the interface could behave is as follows. A number of posters >are "authorities". One type of good choice for authorities is people >who answer lots of questions, usually in an accurate manner. 1. My first observation is that the pro-anarchy forces would have a hard time with this; a compromise would be to create a seperate newsgroup which the moderator(s) approved selected articles to. This is essentially what Greg's doing now in news.announce.newgroups; I don't know if he uses cross-posting or not. Note that I am not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with this view, just making an observation. 2. The more general case, which has been mentioned by several folks, is to expand the KILL file concept to a more general one: essentially a simple expert system where you could set the rules, such as "assign articles by default to 0" "add to articles from Spaf +10" "add to articles from Joe Flamer -10" "add to articles with PC in the title -7" "set current viewing threshhold to +5" and so forth. Then everyone could assign their own numeric "authoritative- ness". In fact, I could see hierarchies of moderators, i.e. "assign articles by default to 0" "use weightset last posted by Joe Flamer * -10" etc. Of course this would require a new generation of newsreader; volunteers? Mark Linimon attctc!linimon