Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: summarizing for the net
Message-ID: <1300025@ccvaxa>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 11:58:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.1300025
Posted: Wed Nov  6 11:58:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 07:27:19 EST
References: <5680@amdcad.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:amdcad.UUCP:5680:ccvaxa:1300025:000:954
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece    Nov  6 10:58:00 1985


> What this leads to is viewing the summary process as a kind of mini mod
> group with the moderator being the original requester. A very specific
> interest area is defined, and people *mail* their input.  Then the
> "moderator" eliminates duplicates and posts. And I think it works well.
> /* Written 12:07 pm  Nov  2, 1985 by phil@amdcad.UUCP in
> ccvaxa:net.news */
----------
The problem is turnaround time.  Any question with time value is much
better off getting multiple answers directly submitted (which may
start appearing at the questioner's site within hours) than waiting for
answers to go up to a moderator and back out to the net (which may
take two weeks).

I think moderated lists are a very good idea for media where mail
is delivered in reasonable time (like the Arpanet) and a much less
good idea where delivery time is unpredictable and potentially
very unreasonable.

-- 
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece