Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!clyde!ima!mirror!xanth!kent From: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: news.stargate Subject: Re: A modest proposal Message-ID: <829@xanth.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Apr-87 10:34:56 EST Article-I.D.: xanth.829 Posted: Mon Apr 13 10:34:56 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Apr-87 19:26:45 EST References: <1369@ncc.UUCP> <748@xanth.UUCP> <283@mcdchg.UUCP> <765@xanth.UUCP> <7878@utzoo.UUCP> Reply-To: kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va. Lines: 90 Keywords: It isn't that easy to scan the news Summary: Supporting arguments for scanner costs; also, savings estimates. >> = me In article <7878@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> First, it takes about 6 to 8 persons to thoroughly scan the net, >> reading 40 hours each per week, and, on their shoestring, they can't >> afford the help... > >Last I heard, they do intend to eventually pay their moderators. It's the >only thing they can do. One reason why we don't have more moderated groups >is the difficulty of finding volunteer moderators. > >6-8 persons should not be needed. 1.5MB/day is about 250kwords/day, at 500 >words/minute (really fast readers are faster) that's 500 minutes a day, not >much more than one 8-hour shift. Call it two people to allow for overhead, >weekends, vacations. 1) I would be very distraught as Stargate's attorney (not me, no sir ;-) if I thought that articles were being read at 500 wpm for culpable legal problems. I _might_ agree that an analysis to avoid legal problems could done, by an expert in libel and such stuff, at 5 wpm. 2) As a submitting author, I would be _very_ upset if my article, making several subtle points in the philosophy of consciousness, were evaluated and discarded, at 500wpm. I might let an expert try to make that decision at 50 wpm and several rereadings. [Myself, I read fiction at about 600 wpm, or 1800 wpm if I'm showing off my rusty speed reading skills, but it often takes me an hour to read a 450 word page of technical material, and I consider the time well spent.] 3) As a moderator, (nope, not me, no way, never; thankless job!) I would rarely be content with just _reading_ an article; most of them are edited for publication. For example, we have one netlander publishing worthwhile, cogent articles whose .signature includes: "Debbie's cat house, where the customer comes first." I have to be paying enough attention to notice what that really says (not at 500 wpm after 7 hours, I won't), then I have to stop and edit it out; worse, it is tastefully arranged stacked as several lines at the right side of the .signature, so I have to spend quite a bit of time editing it out neatly. Then, suspicious of what this poster is trying to slip by me, I have to go back and reread the article a couple of time to see what _else_ he's stuck in there. 4) Also, as a moderator, I have to consider the value of the article: does it contribute something new to a discussion, or is it the same old stuff, from the same tired arguer in a lost cause. This slows me down a lot. 5) As a last small demurrer to the value of carrying only moderated groups, I just went and byte counted our unexpired news, moderated against the rest. (Nearly shook the disk drives out of the computer room. ;-) We have a 2 week expiration horizon, and if there is a newsgroup to which we don't subscribe, it is not for lack of trying. The moderated stuff is just under 16% of the total. Are the savings going to be worth the hardware investment, the time spent revising the news software, and the extra administrative hassle of taking care of two systems, if all Stargate is willing to carry is one sixth of the news? Can they safely carry more until they have taken the legal steps required to confirm common carrier status? 6) Despite all of the above, I am very much in favor of SOME cheaper way to spread the news. I even think a properly devised Stargate could do the job and earn a profit. However, and happily, I notice, perhaps in reaction to the reactions to the Stargate plan, that a new "how to do it cheaper" experiment, called UUNET (sp ?), has been publicized in this newsgroup. Another great way to reduce costs would be for all the sites to install one of the new "9600 baud on a voice grade, unconditioned line" modems recently discussed in the fidonet newsgroup. I'm in love with the one that splits the line into 512 frequency channels - baroque! I think we are still doing news here at 1200 baud, so that would cut our AT&T communication costs by 7/8, while Stargate would only achieve a savings of 1/6, as now planned, if the hardware, the subscription, and the administrative overhead were all FREE. These are just _my_opinions_. Take with salt. What are your comments? Kent. -- The Contradictor Member HUP (Happily Unemployed Programmers) // Also // A Back at ODU to learn how to program better (after 25 years!) \\ // Happy \// Amigan! UUCP : kent@xanth.UUCP or ...{sun,cbosgd,harvard}!xanth!kent CSNET : kent@odu.csnet ARPA : kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu Voice : (804) 587-7760 USnail: P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Va 23501-1559 Copyright 1987 Kent Paul Dolan. How about if we keep the human All Rights Reserved. Author grants race around long enough to see retransmission rights recursively only. a bit more of the universe?