Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!wang!comm.wang.com!lws From: lws@comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: "peer review" style of moderation Message-ID: <1990Dec11.172357.23230@comm.wang.com> Date: 11 Dec 90 17:23:57 GMT References: <1990Nov24.163906.19793@chinet.chi.il.us> <971@iiasa.UUCP> <1990Nov28.170948.11146@sceard.Sceard.COM> <1990Nov30.022320.6793@ico.isc.com> Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms. Lines: 23 abeals@autodesk.com (Plu festu, uloj) writes: >A better way would be to have multiple moderators - each moderator gets >a copy of each submission. If the moderator thinks it's worth sending out, >s/he drops a copy onto the newsgroup ****using a modified copy of the >original message-id**** [<- yo, important point there]. > [ ... ] >Simple, neat, elegant. And excessively redundant. Yeah, it works, but people aren't microprocessors. What you're asking me (as hypothetical moderator) to do is to go through all the effort of checking/cleaning/etc a posting, only to have it tossed as a duplicate. And it really can be quite a bit of work. No thanks. The coordination between moderators to avoid duplication of effort (hence, waste) is very valuable. -- Lyle Wang lws@comm.wang.com 508 967 2322 Lowell, MA, USA uunet!comm.wang.com!lws The scum always rises to the top.