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