Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!topaz!klinzhai!webber
From: webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber)
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: odd you should mention net.sources/mod.sources
Message-ID: <192@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sun, 26-Apr-87 07:38:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: brandx.192
Posted: Sun Apr 26 07:38:28 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Apr-87 23:16:22 EDT
References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP> <7947@utzoo.UUCP> <269@tropix.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 57
Summary: a great example of the differences that the old usenet preserved

In article <269@tropix.UUCP>, mjl@tropix.UUCP (Mike Lutz) writes:
>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.  ...
> 
> 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

It is odd that you should mention net.sources and mod.sources.  It was
exactly the realization that we were loosing net.sources (according to
the note of the moderator of the new comp.sources.d) that made me feel
things had just gotten out of hand.  That we have lost the quick
distribution of program sources was the proverbial straw looking for
a camel.

> an identifiable individual will actually *try* the code has led to
> significantly higher quality in the former vis-a-vis the latter.  I

Incidently, from what I have read, the new moderator of comp.sources
will not try out the code.  He claims he is only interested in making
sure that all submissions are program texts (according to a message
that appeared in the associated discussion group).  So the difference
in quality that you claim (but that I never saw) is destined to pass
away due to the moderation of the previously unmoderated group --
ironic, huh?  Net.sources gains a bottleneck and mod.sources looses
it's claimed quality control.

> scan net.sources for the occasional jewel in the manure; I archive
> the moderated group because the contributions are almost guaranteed

Sigh.  Most people know that good ideas grow in manure.  In concrete,
you get only pale shadows from the neighboring garden.

> to be top-notch.  I think it is psychologically easier to drop
> half-baked code you knocked-off yesterday into net.sources.  By extension,

I always figured it was a matter of choosing to share with people who
were capable of judging code for themselves versus sharing with people
who had to rely on a moderator.  Also, doubtless many people would be
puzzled as to what service the moderator was supplying that was worth
the inconvenience he so often causes.

> it is easier to drop half-baked ideas into an unmoderated discussion
> group.

Actually just the opposite.  You are much more likely to get massively
flamed and held up to public ridicule on an unmoderated group than on
a moderated group.  On the other hand, flames are sometimes the best
way to bake a pbi.  You might liken using a moderated group after you
have used an unmoderated group to using a batch machine after you had
used a timesharing machine.  Clearly, not progress.  But cards do give
some people a feeling of security.

-------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; BACKBONE!topaorde
N
O
O