Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!dkuug!freja!stodol From: stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Comp.groupware wins sci.groupware vote Keywords: moderation followup newsgroup creation Message-ID: <5045@freja.diku.dk> Date: 14 Dec 89 21:15:21 GMT Organization: DIKU, U of Copenhagen, DK Lines: 54 Chip Salzenberg writes in <257E830A.23877@ateng.com> >The idea of a followup group doesn't work unless the original group is >moderated; otherwise people don't use the followup group. eunet.general eunet.followup & nordunet.general nordunet.followup Both of these pairs are unmoderated. They work fine and people use the followup groups. If a followup is posted to comp.groupware it will be either a mistake or a flame. Readers can choose whether they want to look at these. In extreme cases the kill file will be useful, and if someone wants to hack a few :-) lines of code, we can even have automatically generated kill notices sent to authors who violate protocol. >See alt.sources >for an example. Periodic flaming results from non-source articles in >alt.sources. This is a question of the content of a post. It is not the same as the question of whether the post is a followup. It is not necessary to read a post to see that it is a followup. Posts that are not read will not generate flames. >I know that the groupware proposal included groupware.f. But the people- >voted-for-it argument didn't work for comp.women, sci.aquaria or >comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac. It won't work for comp.groupware.f either. It has been suggested and I have agreed that the followup group should be named comp.groupware.followup. The function of the followups group will most likely be changed to be a channel for machine readable evaluations when software becomes available. See my post "Mutual Moderation" in news.groups. This would make it possible for authors to get both positive and negative feedback, and for readers to be highly selective. This improved form of moderation eliminates the need for the moderation by a single person accountable to no one and the associated unfortunate displays of irresponsible behavior seen periodically. Not to mention the delays, lost mail, and other problems associated with moderated groups. The position that voting doesn't work seems to be another argument against the Guidelines. -- David S. Stodolsky, PhD Routing: <@uunet.uu.net:stodol@diku.dk> Department of Psychology Internet: Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88 Voice + 45 31 58 48 86 DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Fax. + 45 31 54 32 11