Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!gdmr From: gdmr@cstvax.UUCP (George D M Ross) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.news.adm Subject: mod.* groups (formerly Re: net.sources.d poll results) Message-ID: <72@cstvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Mar-86 06:00:15 EST Article-I.D.: cstvax.72 Posted: Wed Mar 5 06:00:15 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 22:22:08 EST References: <1064@burl.UUCP> Reply-To: gdmr@cstvax.UUCP (George D M Ross) Organization: Comp. Sc., Edinburgh Univ., Scotland Lines: 22 Xref: watmath net.news.group:5163 net.news.adm:544 In article <1064@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: ># rmgroup net.sources, use only mod.sources >*I* liked this one a lot, but so many people screamed that the mod.* >groups are not yet out of their infancy and are difficult to post to, >etc. that I don't think it is a good idea *yet*. Many people expressed >difficulties in reaching moderators of certain groups, for example; >mod.sources was cited in particular. For groups where postings may be large, such as mod.sources, we should perhaps be thinking of having multiple moderators at sites which are geographically widely separated (or maybe separated in terms of some network connectivity and cost metric, but that wouldn't be so simple...). The consequent reduction in redundant traffic (e.g. shipping Kbytes of source across the Atlantic only to have it shipped straight back again) would surely outweigh any possible drawbacks. With more moderators the workload would presumably be spread more thinly too...? -- George D M Ross, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Edinburgh, Scotland Phone: +44 31-667 1081 x2730 JANET: gdmr@UK.AC.ed.cstvax --> ARPA: gdmr@cstvax.ed.AC.UK UUCP: !ukc!cstvax!gdmr