Xref: utzoo news.admin:3242 news.software.b:1535
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b
Subject: Re: Usenet is not a BBS (Was: Re: Results of "moderation poll" (LONG))
Message-ID: <1917@looking.UUCP>
Date: 9 Aug 88 18:32:49 GMT
References: <401@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <6627@conexch.UUCP>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 39

Actually, the problem isn't just the novices who aren't aware that usenet
shouldn't be full of such junk.  There are lots of experienced users who
post it because they like to post it.  But the novices are a big part.


One solution I liked was the suggestion that there be no "followup" command,
merely a reply command, which, after you composed the article, asked if
it should be mailed (default) or posted as a followup, with lots of
notes on what not to post.

I would take this one step further, and use it as the complete tool for
most "rules" implemented in the software:

1) reply/followups are always mailed if the original article did not have
a "Followup-to:" header.  That's right, *no followups unless the original
poster explicitly wrote a header for followups to the net*.  And in
particular, since the original poster has to type the followup list by
hand, it will (hopefully) only be ONE group.   People would no longer
carelessly ignore requests to "reply by mail" and if somebody does ask
for followups to the net when it's not appropriate, we have somebody to
yell at, rather than all the followers-up!

2) If the article contains too much quoted text, don't reject it, just
mail it.  If it has that much quoted text it is obviously directed at
the person who wrote the quoted text!  Get rid of all that "line counter
fodder" crap.

3) If the user asks to post the article, then go through the warnings
about the size of the audience and appropriate matters for followups, and
then confirm.   Lessons like:
	If this is a response to a question, please mail it and
	ask the asker to summarize to the net.  If you *must* post,
	please wait a day or two to see if anybody else has responded.
	Only post what you are sure of and have researched, there's nothing
	worse than being a fool who didn't take time to check facts in front
	of 10,000 people.   If this is a point-by-point rebuttal, please
	mail it.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473