Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Digests (Actually using rn and digests)
Message-ID: <1988@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Jun-86 23:42:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1988
Posted: Wed Jun 11 23:42:41 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Jun-86 02:42:32 EDT
References: <784@steinmetz.UUCP>
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 33

Bill Davidsen writes:

>It may come as a shock to you, but some of us disagree with you. Some
>of us like digests because (a) they often group comments on a subject
>which would otherwise dribble in over several days, and (b) some of the
>most blatent nonsense is omitted or at least identified as such by the
>moderator. I would not be in favor of only moderated groups and
>digests, but I am happy with the choice. Go stamp out something else.

(b) is simply a function of moderation: if there's good moderation, then you
get this, and if there's bad or no moderation, you don't, regardless of
whether there's digestification.


(a) is partly a matter of moderation.  Unfortunately for the news, few
moderators group together articles principally by topic; there's almost
always several different topics in each digest.  And the grouping function
can be performed by a moderator without resort to digests.

This grouping is overrated anyway: in a sustained discussion, the grouping
buys you almost nothing.

>PS: there are a number of tools for undigestification if you wish to
>use them, complaining that rn doesn't do what you (personally) want is
>like saying that your screwdriver doesn't drive nail well. This is not
>to say that enhancements aren't welcome, I just don't think they're
>*needed*.

If you want that kind of analogy, then my rejoinder is that having digests
in the news is like having a box whose top is held on with seven wood screws
and a nail.  It's annoying to have to go looking for a hammer.

C. Wingate