Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site munnari.OZ
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!munnari!kre
From: kre@munnari.OZ (Robert Elz)
Newsgroups: net.news.b
Subject: Re: Problem with mod groups:  cross-posting doesn't work.
Message-ID: <994@munnari.OZ>
Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 09:41:07 EST
Article-I.D.: munnari.994
Posted: Sun Oct 27 09:41:07 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Oct-85 01:20:43 EST
References: <209@l5.uucp> <987@munnari.OZ> <218@l5.uucp>
Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia
Lines: 64

In article <218@l5.uucp>, gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> [Note:  I'm John Gil*more* and I'm l5!gnu.  I don't work at Sun.]
Sorry about the name mixup - that's one of the things that
happens when you try and avoid including text from previous
postings, & rely on quoting from memory (especially true
when its my memory in question!)

> I guess if it all works out in the end I'm satisfied.  The things I
> am complaining about are:
> 
> 1.  It didn't do the expected thing.
Maybe not what you expected, its exactly what I would expect,
earlier news versions did unusual things with such cross postings.

> 2.  I don't want a moderator censoring my postings to an unmoderated group.
It seems to me that moderators very rarely "censor" anything. They
may occasionally reject articles (in which case you just post it),
but I would have expected to have heard from people if moderators
started making inappropriate editing changes.  (Correcting spelling
and such, if any moderator actually goes to that trouble, I wouldn't
expect would bother anyone)

> 3.  I don't want the extra delay in my postings to an unmoderated group.
It sounds as if you what you want is to post your article twice, how
can you conceivably have one posting that both has a delay, and doesn't?

> 4.  I haven't seen any evidence that moderators can cooperate in
>     approving a cross-posting.  Does it work technically?  Do they do it?
I don't know that it has ever happened, but it certainly could.

> 
> I don't object to mod groups -- they have their place -- but if the net
> really wants to use them (rather than "if a few net admins really want
> us to use them") then they ought to work -- and work as well as what they're
> claimed to replace.

I suspect that in this last sentence you really mean "and work the
same as ..".  Moderated groups aren't the same as net groups.  For
some (most) purposes they are a LOT better, but they do have some
disadvantages (even leaving aside the workload on the moderator).
Where a group really is moderated, I much prefer to read it than
unmoderated groups, I know that the "thousand answers" problem
is going to be weeded out, as are most of the perennial questions from
naive users.  Of course, where the moderated group is just an automatic
mailing list (mail in, & its redistributed) we get the disadvantages
with none of the advantages.

Another aspect of all this is that cross postings are way overused
(abused).  If any article that you are posting belongs in one group
then it almost certainly DOES NOT belong in any others.  Exceptions exist
where an article doesn't really belong one place, and you are trying
to find a suitable home for a topic (testing out readers of several groups
to see which set are most interested in a discussion).    Announcements
sometimes might qualify too.  Remember that readers who unsubscribe
to a newsgroup do so because they don't want to see articles on a topic,
you shouldn't force them to see something by posting in some other
group.   If you think that readers of some group realy might be interested
in something that belongs in another group, then don't cross-post,
post a pointer article instead (and note, I'm not suggesting this
because I care about "notes" sites, I don't, but because I care
about being forced to look at things cross posted to a group that
I read when it was also posted to (and belonged in) another group).

Robert Elz	seismo!munnari!kre  kre%munnari.oz@seismo.css.gov