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