Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 5/22/85; site cbosgd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!mark From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.sources Subject: Re: As long as we are taliking about rmgrouping ... Message-ID: <1607@cbosgd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Nov-85 01:04:19 EST Article-I.D.: cbosgd.1607 Posted: Wed Nov 13 01:04:19 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Nov-85 01:02:11 EST References: <245@mit-eddie.UUCP> <136@vcvax1.UUCP> <687@ucsfcgl.UUCP> <5647@amdcad.UUCP> <451@oliven.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Oh Lines: 20 Xref: watmath net.news.group:4496 net.sources:3850 In article <451@oliven.UUCP> rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) writes: >I can't take the time to go through 400 to 500 line digests when only >20 lines will be of interest to me. And I've seen this in the new >moderated newsgroups. I've just unsubscribed to most of them for this >reason. I don't understand this at all. When I come back from a 1 week trip, I dread catching up on my news. I would much rather go through 10 or 20 messages that a moderator agrees contribute something to the discussion than through 100-200 messages that are full of duplicates, noise, and mistakes. In the current situation, I use the "catchup" command a lot and miss potentially useful information. Perhaps Mr. Pease is confusing moderation with digestification. But even in that case, the above argument only makes sense if digests aren't grouped into useful topics. Most moderated newsgroups are not digests, and most digests are grouped so that one digest talks about only one subject. Mark Horton