Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!vortex!lauren From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Doomsday cometh (VERY LONG) Message-ID: <781@vortex.UUCP> Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 16:06:53 EDT Article-I.D.: vortex.781 Posted: Thu Sep 5 16:06:53 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 6-Sep-85 05:23:59 EDT Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles Lines: 93 It occurs to me that we're trying to hold back an ocean with a sponge. Gang, there ain't NO WAY we can make this work. It's doomed. Strong statement? Yep. In the short run, trying to control newsgroup proliferation will help hold off the day of reckoning, and I think we should do so. But in the medium/long run I think that Usenet, in its current form, has had it. And medium-run may not be that far off. Look what's happening. Multitudes of new group requests. People creating groups WITHOUT requests. People trying to set up gateways to Usenet from other networks with God knows how many people on them. People still bitching that "moderated groups don't work on Usenet" or "violate their freedoms." Hell, the net as a whole can't even decide to delete a darkening cesspool like net.bizarre (which at one time definitely had considerable interesting content.) And every new group tends to create new traffic since somebody will always have SOMETHING to say about ANYTHING, and of course wants EVERYONE to read it. Plus we have the increasing number of small nodes which will eventually swamp the larger sites in terms of sheer numbers. It's going to be very sad to see this grand experiment slowly die, like a terminal patient being kept alive with life-support equipment but who gradually loses more and more of their sensibilities as they fade away. This network is now, and will rapidly continue to become, an incredibly expensive anachronism. And those of us brave enough (or stupid enough) to sit around long enough to watch are going to see a pretty ugly sight as many of the more creative elements of the network (both individuals and sites) gradually depart from our ranks and cause the signal/noise ratio to continue degrading. I offer no solution for the current environment. The cause of the problem is very clear, and is a lesson for us all: You can't run a totally unmoderated information environment successfully beyond a certain critical mass of submitters. You can have 100 million people reading a magazine... but you don't let 100 million, or even 1000, people send in articles every month and promise to publish them all, regardless of volume or content. You can publish everything that comes in when you have a small newsletter--but once you get above a certain size you have to start making decisions about what you want to publish both from a technical/cost standpoint and to keep the information channel from being swamped in noise. This is exactly the situation we have here--Usenet worked for a while but is simply too big. It doesn't scale up properly. One problem is that too many people tend to think only of their own interests and not of the net at large. THEY want to discuss some topic and HOW DARE the network refuse to carry it? The number of groups that already exist makes matters worse. "Hell, if net.foo already exists, why can't I create net.bar?" they ask. The curve of network degradation seems to definitely be non-linear. It may even be close to exponential. We seem to have recently passed a point on the graph where the slope is suddenly starting to get increasing oriented toward the vertical. It's gonna get a lot worse. --- Like I said, I don't have a solution other than to continue with my work on Stargate (which is proceeding well by the way) in the hopes of being able to provide a useful alternative for people in the near future. Since it hits all points at once (being a broadcast medium) and since all materials would be moderated in some manner, I hope it can avoid duplicating the problems we're seeing on Usenet now. And I do hope to be able to encompass many of the subject areas already on Usenet. --- One last thing. I'm not trying to blame anyone for this. The problems we're seeing are systemic, they aren't the result of any single person or groups' actions. Usenet started small and we kept piling on pieces. The nature of the network and the many unrelated entities involved in the net made this almost inevitable. We've all tried real hard to keep things running, even though most of us realize, deep inside, that the patient is dying. But some additional life-saving efforts may prolong the patient for a while longer... we may have a little bit of time left before the sheer numbers wipe us out. But though we may win occasional battles, I think we've already lost the war. The patient is terminal and cannot be prolonged indefinitely. Still, it has certainly been an interesting experience. --Lauren--