Xref: utzoo news.admin:7865 news.groups:15280 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: Fixing the unbroken Message-ID: <55499@looking.on.ca> Date: 2 Dec 89 03:47:21 GMT References: <7139@ficc.uu.net> <11832@cbnews.ATT.COM> <623@banyan.UUCP> Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Lines: 27 Class: query Compared with other voting-like systems, the current voting like system is no more or less broken, that's true. But I would like to see the "it isn't broken" advocates come out with some evidence to support the claim that this system *is* working. Yes, something gets done. And yes, on the odd votes that fail, the champion sometimes (but not always) goes away quietly. But is it picking the right groups? We are looking for a system to answer the question, "is this group valuable enough that it should, by default, be distributed everywhere?" That's the question being asked. I am more and more convinced the current system measures only the enthusiasm of the group's champion. And not just in cases like sci.age.of.aquarius. What a dumb thing to measure. My examination of readership from sites that report it says that this system has done rather poorly. It has created very few groups that have reached the highest levels of readership. And I would even venture that the groups it has created that did reach those levels would have been created by just about any system. The "alt" random system has done just about as well. So come on, folks. Instead of saying "me, too," show us some *evidence* for your claim that this voting farce works. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com