Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP Newsgroups: news.stargate Subject: Re: how does comp.sys.masscomp benefit from a moderator????? Message-ID: <242@brandx.rutgers.edu> Date: Wed, 27-May-87 04:33:43 EDT Article-I.D.: brandx.242 Posted: Wed May 27 04:33:43 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 28-May-87 06:27:51 EDT References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP> <7947@utzoo.UUCP> <3112@soma.bcm.tmc.edu> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 72 Summary: still don't see the `benefit' In article <3112@soma.bcm.tmc.edu>, usenet@soma.bcm.tmc.edu (USENET maintenance) writes: > It is a Multibus-based 680X0 machine. The next generation will be VME-based. > Since your sample is 5 messages, you probably don't know much about the scope > of the group. So, I would say that you indeed would be hard put to figure out what > we are up to out here. Well, I am glad to hear that it is just a generic workstation that could be easily discussed in the context of comp.sys.workstations. You are right that I had only a very limited sample to view. Since the creation of the group (under the comp name), my site has now seen 12 articles (of which only 2 are around). It will be interesting to see if there are ever enough articles posted to establish what the group is up to. > Yes, I distributed the first year's archive at the users' group meeting > that the summaries summarize. I was more interested in archives that are available via email requests. > >I would love to hear/see all these redundant messages you have been > >filtering out. ... > Are you saying that having the noise is worth a lack of moderation? > ... No. I am saying that I would love to see these messages. I personally do not believe all this hypothetical noise exists. The group just has too little in the way of postings to give one the feeling that it is in desparate need of moderation. Even if all this noise does exist, I would find it interesting to see how my own judgments of such noise would compare to those of the moderator (elsewhere I have maintained that there is an aspect of subjectivity in such judgements). > > > >I fail to see why it is necessary for you to moderate the usenet > >discussion in order for you to forward it to non-usenet users. > > > It is not necessary. It is just an easy way to allow others (not on USENET) > to join into the discussion. The internet has been doing this way along time. I hardly see why it is easier for the moderator to post to non-usenet people incoming messages than it is for a reader to set up a program that grabs recent postings in a group and reposts them to non-posters. This along with an automatic posting of incoming messages from non-usenet could all be handled without a moderator having to constantly thrash through 10 articles a month. Now that is true ease. [Of course those people off usenet have to suffer with the gateway bottleneck, but that is probably the best they can get short of joining usenet.] > >Certainly it is possible to answer queries and stimulate discussion without > >forcing all of it to go through you first. > > > I agree, but with moderation there is one answer written once, not 30 or > 40 times. Again, you seem to opt for high noise and repetition vs. > conservation of resources. Sounds like you are mistaking comp.sys.masscomp for rec.arts.sf-lovers . I am all for conserving resources (or more precisely, in getting maximum utility out of what exists), but don't see this as a justification for moderation. Elsewhere (in this group) I have shown how the net could be modified such that the flow is kept within the resources available without introducing the gross inefficiency and inappropriateness of moderation. -------------------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu) Moderation is a horrible thing, Lady Hunstanton. Nothing succeeds like excess. from: A Woman of No Importance Oscar O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (1854-1900)