Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pacbell!att!mtunx!alberta!teletron!andrew From: andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Unbiased moderator volunteers Message-ID: <385@teletron.UUCP> Date: 27 Jun 88 16:37:15 GMT References: <2805@rpp386.UUCP> <28.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> <4542@gryphon.CTS.COM> <1835@van-bc.UUCP> Organization: TeleTronic Communications Ltd., Edmonton, Alta. Lines: 26 In article <1835@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: > > It kind of bugs me when people complain too much about the increased volume. > I don't think the S/N ratio is too much worse than two years ago when I > joined the net. The volume has roughly doubled in that time but the cost of > CPU cycles, RAM and disk space has had a roughly corresponding drop. The > software is more efficent now - especially if you run C news ( I don't but > will convert later this year ). The cost of long distance communications > has dropped - both in terms of $/min and increased efficency of using the > available bandwidth (ie Trailblazers). It's not just a matter of computing horsepower as to why I think we should attempt to cut volume, although it is an important factor for many sites. The net is just too big to handle as a *reader*. You are correct in saying that the S/N ratio is about the same as it was two years ago, but the doubling of net bandwidth in that time means that twice as much N has to be waded through to get to the S. I simply don't have the time to read as much as I would like. Getting back to the original discussion, a fully moderated USENET would be easier to read because most of the N has been filtered out. I can't imagine that anybody objects to *that*, although I do understand some of the other objections to moderation. -- Andrew Scott andrew@teletron.uucp - or - {codas, ubc-cs, watmath, ..}!alberta!teletron!andrew