Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!burl!hou3c!Gisle_Hannemyr_%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA From: Gisle_Hannemyr_@QZCOM.MAILNET Newsgroups: net.mail.msggroup Subject: redistribution lists --> conferences&magazines&links etc. Message-ID: <57934@QZCOM> Date: Tue, 5-Jun-84 15:43:00 EDT Article-I.D.: hou3c.612 Posted: Tue Jun 5 15:43:00 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Jun-84 07:59:50 EDT References: <57793@QZCOM> Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Reply-To: Gisle_Hannemyr_%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA, Message_Group_at_BRL_mailing_list%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Lines: 48 To: Message_Group_at_BRL_mailing_list%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA, "Robert Elton Maas"Cc: msggroup@BRL-AOS.ARPA In-Reply-To: <57793@QZCOM> If I interprete your note correctly, it main theme is a suggestion for a more "structured" way of using computer conferencing. While I am symphatic to mechanisms that can augment the quality and reduce the "noise level" in C.C., I think I should report my experience with a magazine model very close to the one you are proposing. For more than a year, two friends and myself has attempted to operate an "Electronic Magazine" along those lines as part of the Oslo COM system. This system is used daily by researchers at three of Norways largest academic institutions, and we hoped that this very special group of users should form a good user base (academics usually write a lot of reports of papers). However, so far we have not received one unsolicited contribution, and even friends and collegues we have approached has not been very forthcoming. Other experimenters with this form have reported equally spectacular failures. The explanations offered for lack of success concentrates on: 1) Electronic media lack the prestige of established scientific journals. 2) A C.C. system shared by friends and neighbours is a to intimate medium to be used to publish ambitious and aspiring research papers. We shall continue our experiment another year (also failure provides some insight), but it seems that the casual, fairly unstructured way traditional C.C. operates, is so far the best format for this form communication. I have no comment on the other topics raised in your entry -- but more powerful link and search mechanisms seems like a good idea.