Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncoast.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!cwruecmp!atvax!ncoast!bsa
From: bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Overload, new material and followup
Message-ID: <636@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-Mar-85 16:11:53 EST
Article-I.D.: ncoast.636
Posted: Sun Mar 10 16:11:53 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 10:12:37 EST
References: <3443@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery)
Organization: North Coast Programming, Cleveland
Lines: 177
Summary: 

> Article <3443@alice.UUCP>, from jj@alice.UUCP
+----------------
| >Both.  People tend to use newsgroups to do what the 'n' key (and rn's
| >'kill' functionality) are supposed to do.
| 
| That's a funny way to look at it.  I think the 'n' key is supposed to be
| there to ignore articles you don't really care about.  It seems to me

----> Which is what I use "newsgroup!" in .newsrc for.

| that the reason for ORGANIZATION is to mitigate the need for the
| user to have to process myriads of titles that he or she is not
| interested in.  I'm curious why you feel that people should have to
| take such a more active part in rejecting uninteresting and/or noisy
| information.   

If they want to choose subjects, let them.  Noise is the problem, and no news-
group will ever clean it up.  Despite net.flame, flames are rampant all over
the net.  And segregating everything off into its own newsgroup paves the
way for "newsgroup prejudice" -- if site A decides it doesn't want to carry
some newsgroup that for some reason must go through them (especially if they
are a backbone site), no more newsgroup.  In other words, if you make this
change, Frank Adrian's article begins to become scary.  In fact, your comment
about "n" vs. newsgroups smacks rather loudly of it.  I have posted a solution
which allows for lots of newsgroups... by making them general subjects in
fact, and not look like separate "nets" which could be blocked (an image which
the current net presents to new users, as evidenced by newusers using "net"
when they mean "newsgroup".

| 
| >+----------------
| >| .........................................................I think the lack
| >| of MORE, and better organized newsgroups is the real problem.  Eliminating
| >| newsgroups will, in the short run, provide even MORE traffic for interested
| >| people to deal with.   In the long run, it will eliminate new discussions
| >| and subjects because of precidence.
| >+----------------
| >
| >No.  Fewer newsgroups, plus "rn" for KILL files, makes for fewer postings
| >to multiple newsgroups.
| 
| Frankly-- You say, "No!", but you don't say why you say no.  ASSUMING

I meant that his view of it was wrong, based on my earlier discussion.
Rather than fewer newsgroups lessening topics, PROVIDED that the reading
tools are used correctly and fully, they simplify the subject spaces, so
that one of the major problems -- multiple postings to multiple newsgroups --
is avoided.  Selection is moved from the newsgroups to the subjects.

| machine and by the user.  Putting in "kill files" doesn't solve anything,
| since it only kills what you've had to put IN it in the first place.
| A reasonable, and RICH heirarchy will result in there being no
| data to filter in the first place.  Making the whole net dependant on a

In other words, censoring newsgroups wholesale.  Read my earlier point.
We are, in case you have missed the earlier discussion, trying to AVOID
this possibility, which will happen on its own if we don't fix it now.
Or, if you mean newsgroup-as-unsubscribable-subject, read the "ug" description
in the vnews documentation, as to why it is a two-character command.  Then
compare it to the rn idea of "kill files".

(If the subject line doesn't describe the topic, it shouldn't be read
anyway -- it's probably not of any real content.)

| necessarily shaky and expensive (in machine time) filtering operation
| isn't very productive, and will only cause more load problems in
| the end machines.

See above.  Newsgroup selection already does this, subject selection would
not change anything.  In fact, "rn" takes fewer cycles WITH kill files than
"readnews" does without.  And I assure you, we are an end machine with news
load problems.

| >| or even stated purpose for netnews.  There is no overall document
| >| that explains how it works, why it works, and what it's existance
| >| depends on.  Make one. (No, I won't volunteer, I'm too controversial,
| >
| >I'm writing one now.  As to whether it'll be useable or not...  (I have
|
| I'm curious.  Why you?  You clearly have a biased opinion of the net,
| at least to me, and I really wonder about what historical basis you will
| base your "document" on.    Please reread my article for

Precisely.  Make one.  Which I am trying to do.  This document will be
shown to Chuq and Lauren and whoever they show it to, and they will decide
if it is to become a standard net document.

| the points on "cooperation" and "volunteer".  They are important points
| that your responses seem to ignore completely.  You seem to regard the
| net user as a faceless individual who must have their thinking done
| FOR them, rather than BY them.

If they thought, the net wouldn't be so congested.  Q.E.D.

| >I don't know why.  Moderation is also necessary to save this net, unless
| >these people would rather start running their own subnets in order to
| >keep their "freedom".  (...and then watch them do 180-degree turns!)
|
| Please separate your opinions and do not represent them as 
| accepted fact.  It will spare me the effort of writing an article
| that contests you, and it will eventually spare you a lot of
| controversy.

And so we stay as we are, since we're so busy making the quibblers happy
that we don't get a chance to fix the net.  It was separated from the rest
enough for anyone else.

| 
| Editorial cheap shot.  That's your opinion.  It's clearly not accepted
| as fact, and I don't SEE it as fact.  "Moderation is also necessary
| to save this net"  just doesn'd hold water in any way, shape or form.

Not full-blown ARPA moderation, I mean sending messages to offenders via
mail to tell them not to, for example, post flames in net.sources.  If this
"doesn't hold water in any way, shape, or form", then the net is already dead.
If the definition of "moderation" is the point of dispute, I submit that you
do not understand what moderation is.  ANY sort of control, even just mailed
complaints about one's net actions, constitutes moderation of a sort.  And
this form already exists and is having an effect in a number of newsgroups.

| We clearly have a problem with abusers, and the net MUST develop
| the maturity (which it has had at several times in the past) to 
| deal with abusers withOUT generating a cure that's worse than
| the problem.  There is no reason to accept that moderation is
| essential in any way, shape, or form.

Okay, it's a problem of definition.  Can we now consider the subject closed?

| a need (and will continue to be ) for some moderated groups, like 
| net.general, for instance...

So?  We can block stonehenge out of net.general, but not Pascal religious
wars out of net.lang.c?

| 
| Please, people, if we can't even agree to meet on the level to discuss
| WHAT we're going to do, then we're just not going to get anything
| done, and the net may well *S*N*A*P*, and Dr. Scott's life (oops, 
| wrong show)...

Right.  And our debate was basically misunderstanding -- I SAID that I often
forget to say what seems obvious to me.  If something is still unclear, please
let me know, preferably by mail and I will summarize.

| there is a SYNTHESIS that may well include elements of all solutions,

Precisely -- but knocking out one of the partial solutions doesn't help.

| 
| We DO need some outlet for those who want to "flame".  It's clear that
| some subjects will engender emotions in even the most reasonable
| people that they will want to let you know just HOW they feel once 
| in a while, and net.flame is a better solution than just
| forcing the issue into net.sources, net.singles,
| net.news.group, net.politics, net.abortion, etc

BUT IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!

| 
| We also would like to see the net survive.  I submit that
| the attitude of the net user is what must be changed, and
| that the structure of the net (which could, of course, undergo
| a good organization, some software changes, etc) is secondary,
| except in those places where it makes the new user absolutely
| likely to blunder.

The only way to change the user is to force it on him via the software.
And even that won't work if you can't convince the system administrators
to run 2.10.2 news, much less any new software.  The only other way is
Arpanet-style moderation -- which I would rather not see, thank you.

--bsa
-- 
Brandon Allbery, decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsa, ncoast!bsa@case.csnet (etc.)
6504 Chestnut Road Independence, Ohio 44131 +1 216 524 1416 -- CIS 74106,1032
		 -=> Does the Doctor make house calls? <=-