Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: a no cost solution to the current netflow problems
Message-ID: <7960@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 25-Apr-87 21:11:47 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7960
Posted: Sat Apr 25 21:11:47 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Apr-87 21:11:47 EST
References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP>, <521@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 40

> The most natural solution would be that if the a site cannot expend
> more than a certain amount of resources toward supporting the net,
> then it should just support the net to the extent that it can and then
> cease for that day...

This is what many sites are in effect doing.  The key point is that those
sites would like to support the *best* material, not just whatever happens
to arrive first.  This implies some sort of selection mechanism.

> That would let the net adapt to such throughput
> restrictions in a `natural manner' (other sites picking up more share
> as they percieve greater responsibility)...

What happens if nobody is willing to pick it up?  Frankly, most of the
backbone sites would be delighted to pass the whole job to somebody else.
There is a distinct lack of volunteers for massive phone bills, massive
system load, clogged communications lines, and regular public abuse.

> ... unmoderated newsgroups (where existing in tandam with
> moderated newsgroups) have consistantly higher quality (will come back
> to this in a later message), faster response, and greater reliability.

Faster response and greater reliability I don't argue with, since imposing
any sort of single-point filtering mechanism inherently hampers those.
Actually, I might argue with them somewhat in the context of Stargate,
since Stargate transmission is both faster and more reliable once the
article gets to the uplink site.  The question is whether this makes up
for it having to reach a moderator by mail and then get from him to the
uplink; I suspect the answer is "not entirely".

As for consistently higher quality, nonsense!  The quality of a newsgroup
is largely determined by two things:  (1) how many really good people are
reading it and posting to it, and (2) how much drivel is being posted by
the real turkeys.  Moderated groups win hands-down on item 2.  As for item
1, the good people increasingly ignore the unmoderated groups because they
don't have time to wade through all the drivel.  Any apparent quality lead
for the unmoderated groups is strictly temporary.
-- 
"If you want PL/I, you know       Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
where to find it." -- DMR         {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry