Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!arisia!ebert
From: ebert@arisia.Xerox.COM (Robert Ebert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Priority scheme for comp.sys.mac.binaries?
Summary: Veto the increasing w/age suggestion
Message-ID: <5598@arisia.Xerox.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 90 04:01:40 GMT
References: <7065@wpi.wpi.edu> <1330@husc6.harvard.edu> <7667@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Reply-To: bebert.osbunorth@xerox.com (Bob Ebert)
Organization: Xerox Sunnyvale System Software Unit
Lines: 30

In article <7667@shlump.nac.dec.com> jnelson@gauche.enet.dec.com (Jeff Nelson) writes:
>> DK> Classifications:  
>
>> DK>  1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature.
>> DK>  2) Original freeware that fits in one article.
>> DK>  3) Original shareware that fits in one article.
>> DK>  4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications.
>> DK>  4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.]
>> DK>  5) Multipart shareware.
>> DK>  6) Demo/crippleware.
>> 
>I suggest the following classification be added to the above list:  
>age.  That is, the older the submission gets, the higher its priority
>becomes.  That way it is eventually guaranteed to appear on comp.binaries.mac.

I'd suggest NOT adopting a increasing w/age priority scheme.  If there's lots
of new useful freeware or shareware, I'd rather see that than an older
commercial demo.  Basically, comp.binaries.mac should not be used for
advertising for commercial products.  This is, essentially, what cripple-
ware is.  A priority scheme lets the more 'important' information get out
first, but also provides a reasonable way to keep the binaries coming.

Another useful 'feature' for the group might be a regular (weekly) update of
what's queued.  So we know what to expect and what has arrived for submission.

All this, of course, places an increased burden on the moderator.  (Why
don't we ever hear from him/her?)  But the increased workload seems little
enough.

			--Bob