Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:5580 comp.sources.d:6068 comp.unix.questions:27320 news.sysadmin:3415 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!bellcore!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!midway!gargoyle!ddsw1!corpane!brooks From: brooks@corpane.UUCP (David E. Brooks Jr) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.sources.d,comp.unix.questions,news.sysadmin Subject: Group Moderation? (was: Re: Rich $alz is still alive ??!!!??!!) Message-ID: <3905@corpane.UUCP> Date: 30 Nov 90 14:29:27 GMT References: <1990Nov24.163906.19793@chinet.chi.il.us> <971@iiasa.UUCP> <1990Nov26.170347.3198@decuac.dec.com> <972@iiasa.UUCP> <1990Nov28.020040.5518@looking.on.ca> Organization: Corpane Industries Inc., Louisville, KY Lines: 50 Perhaps there needs to be a different mechanisim for moderating high volume source newsgroups such as comp.sources.unix and comp.sources.misc. I suppose there are any number of options, such as the Professional Moderator mentioned by Brad Templeton (brad@looking.on.ca) in an earlier message, but perhaps the best solution I can think of is multiple moderators. Implementing such an idea does pose some problems, but all-in-all, they don't seem to be difficult to overcome. Hypothetically, it would work like this: A central mail address would accept a submission using a pre-specified protocol (which could be as simple as naming the subject line in a certain format) and assign it to one of the group of moderators for the newsgroup once all parts are received. A copy would be kept at the submission server's site to be posted when approved, in order to keep down the network traffic. How to assign a submission to a moderator could vary, but should include feedback from the individual moderators in some way. This way, if one of the moderators becomes overworked, goes on vacation, et cetera, sub- missions would go to other moderators (and supposedly insuring a steady flow of messages to the network). Also, the content of the submission could be used to determine which moderator received it (e.g., a moderator for BSD-related sources, one for SYSV sources, et cetera). Also, the submission server would need to be able to handle detecting various kinds of errors, such as incomplete submissions, and act accordingly. Communicating between the moderator and the submittor would be direct, with the submittor getting the moderator's address as a reply from the submission server. Of course, it would be a breach of protocol to send a submission directly to an individual moderator. When a moderator approves a submission for posting, either the changed version of the submission would be resent to the server (with appropriate validity checking) or a message indicating that the current copy should be posted is sent. Naturally, there would have to be a cetain amount of communication between moderators in order to maintain a certain level of quality and professionalisim for the newsgroup. Comments, anyone? -- David E. Brooks Jr UUCP : ...{ddsw1,ukma}!corpane!brooks Corpane Industries Incorporated -or- brooks@corpane.UUCP 10100 Bluegrass Parkway Phone: +1 502 491 4433 x122 Louisville, KY 40299 Quote: printf("%c", (char) 34) Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com