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!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: more signal, less noise
Message-ID: <3500016@ccvaxa>
Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 10:21:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.3500016
Posted: Thu Oct 31 10:21:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 06:22:24 EST
References: <3500015@ccvaxa>
Lines: 43
Nf-ID: #R:ccvaxa:3500015:ccvaxa:3500016:000:2135
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece    Oct 31 09:21:00 1985


It has been proposed, by a number of people, that the non-technical
newsgroups should be eliminated, not carried by the backbones,
or made into moderated groups.

I think moderated groups would be the best answer IN A DIFFERENT
NETWORK.  The turnaround time on Usenet is just too horrible to
support discussion in a moderated group.  A response to a posting
can take four days to work upstream to the moderator and as many
again to spread back out through the newsgroup.  A non-moderated
group starts showing responses as the original posting spreads
(sometimes, to the confusion of notes, before the original posting).
I think that immediacy is an important part of the nature of the
livelier groups.

I think the other suggestions, that these groups either cease to
exist or be chopped into regional groups by breaking the backbone
links, would hurt the net.  They are an important part of the
net for many readers, and the technical value of the net derives
in large part from the number of readers.  The net reaches many
sites because one or two people at those sites are sufficiently
interested in being connected that they agitate and push and
do the work necessary to get connected.  Reduce the incentive
to participate, by reducing the diversity of the net, and you
will have fewer people willing to work to get connected and
stay connected.  I think breaking the backbone links for these
groups would reduce most them well below critical mass, the
number of people needed to sustain discussion.

It's a funny thing about evolution.  The present shape of something
which has evolved may be odd or ungainly or counterintuitive,
but it is by definition better suited to survival than the forms
that went before and died out.  The net has alot of volume because
it has a lot of people who want to say something.  That desire to
be heard is a large part of their reason for being on the net
at all.  I think we'd be a lot better off looking for ways to
(a) encourage more signal and (b) reduce the cost of transmission
than looking for ways to (c) reduce the noise.

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