Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!chuq From: chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Statistics, polls: honest, no flames Message-ID: <3417@sun.uucp> Date: Sat, 29-Mar-86 03:21:37 EST Article-I.D.: sun.3417 Posted: Sat Mar 29 03:21:37 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Mar-86 10:52:44 EST References: <2015@hao.UUCP> <3389@sun.uucp> <474@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> Distribution: net Organization: Fictional Reality, uLtd Lines: 31 > In article <3389@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > > but I think that it is logical for streamlining > >of the net to be done by getting rid of the high volume/low readership > >groups -- the most affect for the least netwide trauma (except to the people > >who like to hear themselves type). > > Why don't we get rid of the high volume/low readership posters (guess who > comes to mind....) Well, I'd guess offhand just about anyone in a non-technical group on the seismo top 25. Contrary to the snide insinuation, that ain't me, since I've been on the top 25 once in the last six months. On a practical level, getting rid of individual users is an administrative impossibility for the net -- the only control at the user level is in the hands of the SA. Getting rid of bloated newsgroups IS under net control, and worth looking at. Personally, if it was possible, I'd like to see us get rid of articles with no factual content, useless repetitions, childish accusations and other associated garbage. My biggest worry on this, though, is that there would be no net left when we were done. me -- :From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid: Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your hands and hoping when a rock or a club will do -- McCloctnik the Lucid