Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!cfa203!thakur
From: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.cinema
Subject: Re: More Posts
Message-ID: <1991Jun9.000517.10781@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Date: 9 Jun 91 00:05:17 GMT
References: <1991Jun8.222345.8252@cfa.harvard.edu>
Sender: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Reply-To: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Followup-To: rec.arts.cinema
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA,  USA
Lines: 136
Approved: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu


In article <1991Jun8.222345.8252@cfa.harvard.edu> chris@sloth.bc.ca (Chris Brougham) writes:
>
>It's been about two years since I posted an article to r.a.c so I
>think it's about time that I helped save this group from the rmgroup
>gods...I have a number of suggestions and complaints I would like to
>air, but first I have some questions.

Actually, Chris, the newsgroup has been in existence since February
22, 1990.  Not quite two years yet, although it may seem like it!

>I'd like to ask the readers of this group what *they* think is an
>appropriate subject for r.a.c. Are you interested in "high brow" (a la
>NY Times) type reviews of popular fiction films or perhaps are you
>interested in film theory? Does the philosophical aspect of film
>theory interest any of you...or would you prefer lighter critical
>reviews which highlight such things like acting, musical score, or set
>design in aesthetic rather than theoretical terms?

Just a point of information here: The current charter for r.a.c. (see
my previous posting) specifically prohibits reviews of films, as
rec.arts.movies.reviews is the appropriate newsgroup for such film
reviews.

The charter for r.a.c. does, however, permit "interpretation and
analysis of a particular film or set of films," which seems to mirror
the type of articles that you propose above.  I'll leave it to the
readership to decide whether this distinction between "interpretation
and analysis" and "review" should be maintained.


>What do you think about the idea of a moderator for this group?
>Perhaps Manavendra could respond here, suggesting possible ways in
>which we could increase traffic flow. My vote would be to "unmoderate"
>the group and let anyone post. I think one message every 3 months is a
>little light!

Here is a basic rundown on the approach I've taken to moderating the
newsgroup.  I'll leave it to the readership to debate and decide
whether this approach stifles articles, and if so, whether the
moderation process should be improved or abandoned altogether.

I have done little in the way of actively requesting articles from
people.  Once in a while, I have sent email to people who posted
interesting articles in other newsgroups, and in these notes I've
encouraged them to both post to r.a.c. and inform any friends who also
might be interested in posting to r.a.c.  But that is the extent of my
efforts to "recruit" articles.  If readers agree that the newsgroup
should remain moderated, then this certainly is an area that could be
improved.

As for my approach to moderating the newsgroup, I have, of course,
tried to remain faithful to the charter of r.a.c.  With that lofty
goal in mind, here are some more down-to-earth facts.

I don't have any hard statistics, but I would estimate that about 20%
to 30% of the postings I receive are inappropriate to this newsgroup.
E.g., a number of postings advertised a particular film event prior to
its taking place.  I have disallowed such postings, since they are
useless to most members of the worldwide readership of the newsgroup
and did not contribute to any sort of meaningful discussion.  These
are primarily the type of articles that I have rejected outright.

Of the remaining postings, I would estimate - again, I have no hard
numbers - that more than 50% have been returned by me to the author
for some sort of clarification or improvement.

Some of these clarifications were small grammatical changes, minor
factual errors, spelling, and the like.  Just about every author to
whom I've sent such a clarification request has agreed to the
suggestions or made their own changes.  Upon receipt of the author's
reply, I have posted the articles without any further delay.

I should point out that the grammatical clarification requests were
almost always appended to more important clarification requests that
affected the article's content (see below).  I don't believe I've
returned an article for clarification solely because of grammatical or
other minor errors.

Most often when I've returned articles for clarification, it was
because in my opinion the articles needed more information or
discussion to be of sufficient interest to readers of the newsgroup.

For example, I have in the past received postings that stated "I'm
interested in XYZ, are there other people interested in XYZ?  If so,
let's start a discussion on it."  In my response to the authors of
such postings, I have pointed out that in my estimation the readers of
this newsgroup were likely to be more sophisticated than the casual
movie-goer, and therefore it was quite likely that at least some
readers would be interested in XYZ.  So I've encouraged the author to
write something that would spark the kind of discussion s/he wanted.

In just about every one of these cases, the author agreed to add more
information or comments to the article and then resubmit it.
Unfortunately, due to lack of time or other reasons, most people did
not actually submit a revised article.  When this happened, I've tried
to send email to the authors, reminding them.  I have not done this
too often, however, since people are donating their time voluntarily
and I did not feel I had the right to demand anything.  Also, I
confess to being lazy and not taking the initiative to remind authors
as often as I perhaps should have.

Some people did follow through, and these articles were posted to the
net, usually after a total of one or two exchanges of email.  Only in
one case do I remember an article that needed significant editing [all
of which was done by the author himself after I made suggestions as to
where the article could be improved].  In that case the article was
posted after a total delay of about 5 to 7 days, if memory serves.

Some postings, of course, did not require any modifications at all,
and were posted, usually within hours after being received at my home
machine.

This is, in sum, the approach I've taken to postings received by me.
I would welcome questions, comments, criticisms, suggestions, ideas,
etc on how this approach might be improved - or whether the newsgroup
should be made unmoderated altogether.

Let me also ask readers what the best mechanism is for *discussing*
the changes that should or might be made.  Should r.a.c. be made
unmoderated while the discussion takes place?  Or should people post
as is and trust me to post articles that might be critical of my role
as moderator?  I have no preference one way or another.

If people wish to leave the group moderated during the discussion, I
will of course pledge not make any attempt to censor articles or
otherwise use my role as current moderator to unduly influence the
debate.

I would like to thank Chris Brougham for bringing up these issues and
sparking what I hope is a healthy discussion that rejuvenates
rec.arts.cinema and fulfills its potential.

						Manavendra Thakur
						Moderator, rec.arts.cinema
						thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu