Xref: utzoo news.admin:7870 news.groups:15288
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Fixing the unbroken
Message-ID: <1989Dec2.213242.12967@twwells.com>
Date: 2 Dec 89 21:32:42 GMT
References: <7139@ficc.uu.net> <11832@cbnews.ATT.COM> <623@banyan.UUCP> <55499@looking.on.ca>
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 28

In article <55499@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
: 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.

Brad, stop this nonsense; remember:

	readership level != newsgroup quality.

Before we can even debate whether the current system "works", we
have to define what "works" means. And it certainly does *not*
mean "creating newsgroups with wide readership".

The definition of "works" has the same problem that all attempts
at defining a collective "good" have. It can't be done, except
with reference to individual "good"s. Similarly, the system
"works" only and to the extent that those who use the system feel
that it works.

Given the continually growing nature of the net, I'd say that it
works. Given that most "votes" are accepted, I'd say that the
current "voting" system "works".

---
Bill                    { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com