Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!harvard!spdcc!m2c!ulowell!page From: page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,news.stargate,news.sysadmin,news.admin Subject: the USENET problems Message-ID: <1496@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> Date: Thu, 9-Jul-87 18:33:02 EDT Article-I.D.: ulowell.1496 Posted: Thu Jul 9 18:33:02 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 07:09:10 EDT References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <15982@gatech.gatech.edu> <6948@shemp.UCLA.EDU> <133@hippo.UUCP> <10764@decwrl.DEC.COM> Reply-To: page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) Organization: University of Lowell Lines: 134 Xref: mnetor news.groups:1210 news.misc:733 news.stargate:243 news.sysadmin:293 news.admin:660 [This article is over 100 lines and contains no flames. It even contains constructive proposals. Think about them, please.] Whenever someone gets mad at "the backbone" and flame about it, there is always someone who posts this "response," or one like it: If you don't like the current (foo), start your own. While this might be satisfying for the poster, it means nothing. Sure it would solve the problem, but that's not the way to solve it. Isn't it better to listen to the complaints-hidden-in-flames and respond constructively? Fragmenting USENET into dozens of international subnets is a waste of resources. I certainly don't have the answer to either side's comments, but am interested in a solution. Attacking/defending the backbone does not help. So what problems do we have? 1. The namespace (newsgroup names) are effectively controlled by Gene Spafford's checkgroups message. It synchronizes everyone to the same set of newsgroups, and only the admins who really understand the net will bother to keep groups that don't appear in the checkgroups message. Then again, those admins have to rely on their upstream sites to do the same. 2. Moderation doesn't work correctly because it introduces delays and is unreliable, since it uses point-to-point mail to get to the carbon-based moderator, who may or may not be there (witness mod.sources). 3. There's too much traffic (almost 2MB/day now) and much of it is noise. Those are probably the three major problems; the rest are subsets and offshoots of these. Many would say that (1) isn't a problem at all. A central authority is great, it keeps the world in sync. Since it is made up of people who truly care about USENET, and is a somewhat large body, we can assume that dictums from the backbone are generally good for the net. Sure USENET is an anarchy, but most (>99%) of the site admins will go along with the backbone, for various reasons (no need to list them). reid@decwrl.UUCP (Brian Reid) points out that: >... nntp and PC Pursuit have made the whole concept of the backbone quite >obsolete. Which really reduces the 'backbone' to a group of site admins who want to steer USENET a certain way. It is not a coincidence that many of the people in this group are also people who work hard outside the backbone for USENET (like Rick maintaining the news 2.11 software, Henry working on C news, Mark coordinating the UUCP Project, Gene publishing documentation, Brian collecting arbitron data, etc). Of course there are others in the 'backbone' who do little else for the UUCP/UNIX/USENET community, but that doesn't mean they don't care about the community. Some admins on the backbone, I dare say, are there soley because their employers are generous enough to put up a lot of money to maintain UUCP connections. Their main interest is in keeping the news flow below a certain level. Still nothing wrong with that; they're indirectly concerned with USENET in that they want more info and less noise. It is possible that there are people on the backbone who are there soley to feel like they have control, power, influence, etc. Maybe *all* of the admins feel that to some degree. I suppose it's part of the society we live in; but I digress, and point out that they are probably not any kind of major influence on USENET. Now that I hope I have defined the backbone in non-emotional terms, may I suggest we drop the name and change it to something more realistic? How about USENET Steering Committee? Also, how about opening the group to a (somewhat) larger body? There are people (admins, non-admins) who care about making USENET better who are not on the 'backbone' list. The answer to (2) is more complex. I don't think anyone is truly satisfied with the way moderation works now. Most USENET readers and posters probably agree that moderation in general is a good idea, but the current implementation makes it difficult for posters to get information to readers. The answer is to come up with a different way to do moderation. I don't have solid proposals on what that "different way" should be. I'd like to see a new newsgroup that deals with this question. When a good proposal can be hammered out, implementation can begin. B news 2.12 maybe. The third problem is due to the increase in the number of UNIX systems in use now. Since we can't get rid of these new UNIX sites, we have to find some other ways to decrease the 'noise' traffic. Some are software based, like the 50% included text limit or the 4-line signature limit. Although controversial (and without test data to demonstrate any effectiveness), they are a step towards limiting unneeded text. Another solution is better user education and admin education. Probably the best solution is to break the bulk of USENET into regional networks, with regional group 'forwarders' who send the best (mostly signal, little noise) postings to the larger nets (country net, world net, etc). An ideal implementation would have stratified nets, with some limit on the level (like I can post to the ULowell net, Massachusetts net and New England net, but not the USA net, the North American net, the Earth net or anything higher). Appropriate postings that I make to the (foo) group in New England might get sent to the USA net for countrywide distribution. In some ways it's like the company newsletter, where an article gets picked up by the town weekly paper and the regional daily paper. Maybe USA Today picks it up for national distribution. Maybe UPI and AP pick it up for distribution to other countries and networks, etc. In other ways it's not like the company newsletter, etc, but you get the idea. As you go up in levels, you get reduced noise in newsgroups. You'll still have netwide discussions (like the future of news, unix, etc), but when you come right down to it, there's no need for netwide discussions on (foo) when most of it is noise. Opponents who say "But what if somebody in Texas says something that I would otherwise be interested in? Leave it the way it is!" aren't being constructive in reducing noise (or finding some way to make this regional net scheme work). My quick reply is "what if some newspaper in Texas says something that I would otherwise be interested in?" You can't read everything, most of it would be noise, right? Well, look around you. Welcome to USENET. I'd like to see a new newsgroup dedicated to discussing/solving the traffic issue as well as one for the moderation problem. Reasonable comments welcomed. Flames OK too (email, don't post) as long as there's some light somewhere amongst the heat. ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}