Xref: utzoo news.groups:15602 news.admin:7960
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!cunixf!shoulson
From: shoulson@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Mutual Moderation (was: Semi-moderated newsgroups)
Keywords: moderation newsgroups semi-moderated peer review quality
Message-ID: <1989Dec13.144652.3921@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 89 14:46:52 GMT
References: <5014@freja.diku.dk>
Reply-To: shoulson@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 25


[ mutual moderation by y/n votes of readers...]

GAK!  that's just too messy for words.  I'm not sure about most readers,
but I, at leasty, don't want to be troubled by such a cumbersome procedure
just to read mail.  Worse, there's the enormous decision-making process
involved.  Most people read news for recreation, and don't feel the need to
weigh alternatives so carefully just to find out the latest news on Donkey
Kong (or whatever, even serious topics).  Sure, there's always the decision
of whether or not to read a given article, and this proposal only tries to
make that decision easier, but it seems that it's just adding too much
confusion.

For another situation, this is a pretty neat idea, but I don't think it has
much value on the net.  If someone wants to write some code to try it out
locally somewhere we could get an idea of how people feel about it.

~mark
DISLAIMER:  If you don't like my opinions, wait 'til you see Columbia's.
      o o     o   o             o o   o     o        o   o     o o          
              o                       o	o   o  	   o       o   	 o     	     
  o   o     o     o         o     o     o   o      o   	 o     o       	   

Mark Shoulson:  shoulson@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu   shoulson@cunixf.bitnet
                {...}!rutgers!columbia!cunixf!shoulson