Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!tropix!mjl From: mjl@tropix.UUCP (Mike Lutz) Newsgroups: news.stargate Subject: Re: a simple alternative to moderation -- enforced self-moderation Message-ID: <269@tropix.UUCP> Date: Sat, 25-Apr-87 12:08:27 EDT Article-I.D.: tropix.269 Posted: Sat Apr 25 12:08:27 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 26-Apr-87 20:41:49 EDT References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP> <7947@utzoo.UUCP> <522@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> Reply-To: mjl@tropix.UUCP (Mike Lutz) Organization: GCA/Tropel Div. Rochester, NY 14450 Lines: 28 In article <522@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes: > >Moderation does not mean quality improvement, it just means that you >end up with what the moderator thinks is the good stuff. Remember >Sturgeon's Law, that 90+% of everything is garbage, was generated in >edited journals containing the publications of professional writers. >Most people disagree about what is the good stuff. In my experience, the information content in all the moderated groups is significantly higher than in their unmoderated brethren. What is more, the information itself is of much higher quality. The classic example is mod.sources vs. net.sources: the simple fact that an identifiable individual will actually *try* the code has led to significantly higher quality in the former vis-a-vis the latter. I scan net.sources for the occasional jewel in the manure; I archive the moderated group because the contributions are almost guaranteed to be top-notch. I think it is psychologically easier to drop half-baked code you knocked-off yesterday into net.sources. By extension, it is easier to drop half-baked ideas into an unmoderated discussion group. Re: Sturgeon's Law -- I contend this applies to all submissions as a whole. Thus Lutz's Corallory: if two newsgroups, one moderated and the other unmoderated, deal with the same subject, 95% of the garbage appears in the unmoderated group. Mike Lutz GCA/Tropel, seismo!rochester!tropix!mjl