Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!rutgers!att!cbnewsj!ecl
From: ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: preliminary call for disussion: rec.arts.movies subgroups
Message-ID: <3029@cbnewsj.ATT.COM>
Date: 26 Dec 89 18:23:06 GMT
References: <50059@bbn.COM>
Reply-To: ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 20

A moderated subgroup of rec.arts.movies (r.a.m) would certainly cut down on the
volume, but I'm not sure how useful it would be.  For rec.arts.movies.reviews
(r.a.m.r), for example, I get a fair amount of material from r.a.m itself--
people just don't send directly (either via posting or via e-mail) to the
moderated group.  So the question arises as to whether the new group's articles
would come from direct posting or culling from r.a.m.  If the former, it would
probably be very small; if the latter, I pity the moderator!  It's tough enough
to wade through just looking for reviews, but trying to decide which discussion
postings are valuable is more work than I'd want.

In answer to Richard's question, followups to articles in r.a.m.r are
redirected to r.a.m since they are always (well, 99.9% of the time) brief
comments rather tahn substantive articles.  R.a.m.r looks for "stand-alone"
articles rather than articles than discuss only one point in a previous
article.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 201-957-2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
If I am not for myself, who is for me?  If I am only for myself what am I?
And if not now, when?  --Hillel