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