Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site utrc-2at.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!yetti!utrc-2at!davidh From: davidh@utrc-2at.UUCP (David M Haynes) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.adm Subject: Reducing News Volume (A Suggestion) Message-ID: <164@utrc-2at.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Nov-85 22:28:05 EST Article-I.D.: utrc-2at.164 Posted: Sat Nov 9 22:28:05 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 13:20:12 EST Organization: Ultrasecure Tempest Research Corp., Toronto, Ont. CAN. Lines: 72 Xref: utcs net.news:3885 net.news.adm:413 Gentlebeings: Admittedly, I have not been reading net.news for very long (owing to having access to a only a partial feed until very recently), but it seems to me that an alternate solution to reducing the volume of the network could be considered. [Again, this may have already been discussed, and I missed it] I think it can be safely said that the back-bone sites have no problem moving the majority of the news provided that the news being moved can be shown to have some value. The recent news cuts by henry@utzoo can be seen to be a direct result of too much noise being distributed too far. A quick scan through net.sources in the last little while will show a signal to noise ration of about 7 to 1 (7 "noise" articles to 1 "signal" article.) This can be shown in even more clarity by looking at the recent messages from the European sites. The vast majority of noise on the net is due to two things: 1. Inappropriate actions by a submitter. (submission to the wrong group, submission rather than mail replies, etc.) 2. Submissions that are of no value outside the immediate area. With respect to point one: Although it has always been the policy of the network that "a submitter should police him/herself" this is clearly not working effectively. Secondly, the solution of "peer pressure" by barraging the submitter with mail messages has some very serious drawbacks. It may serve to alienate the recipient who has made a honest error; it still may cost the back-bone sites considerable money to process the mail messages. With respect to point two: The network has a number of solutions for this as well. (net.na, net.local, etc.) However, these safeguards are being abused in the same manner as in point one. (I can attest to having no interest in deals for automobiles available in Portland, but I still get the messages about them in net.na.forsale) So, clearly the net is unable to remain operating in the same manner as it has in the past - witness the news cuts by henry@utzoo and the strong message from Gene Spafford. However, the dropping of entire news groups has its own problems - the signal is being thrown out with the noise! The solution I would like to propose is actually based on a remark of Henry's with respect to the creation of net.ont.sf-lovers to replace net.sf-lovers. He said something to the affect that "I think this [the creation of localized newsgroups] is going to become the way of the net." (Henry - sorry if that's not exact, but I'm quoting from memory.) The problem with a solely localized network is that the thinking tends to become localized as well. I enjoy reading the views of others on the net, especially those who are distributed geographically, who add a bit of their culture to the net with every posting and make the net stronger. What to do? I agree with Henry, the net will probably begin to form localized groups for networking and general discussion, but I think that some careful consideration should be given to a system of distilling the results from these localized discussions and making them available to the rest of the network, or something very valuable will be lost. Perhaps the system of moderated newsgroups would be the best place for this, but, instead of having one central moderator (who I am sure is overworked and under appreciated for performing the task of sifting through all the submissions) there should be several moderators (like the mod.uucp.map newsgroup). Then the vital issues of each local newsgroup could be distributed over the larger network for all and, since the noise is reduced locally, the volume of transmissions would also be reduced. -david- David Haynes ..!utzoo!ecrhub!david ..!utzoo!yetti!utrc-2at!david