Moderate this newsgroup?

Moderate this newsgroup?

The number of off-topic posts is rising, but we
can do something about it. We can turn this
into a moderated newsgroup - see

http :// www .landfield,com /usenet/moderators/handbook/

and

http :// www .faqs.org/faqs/usenet/moderation/pitfalls/

Is anyone interested in becoming a moderator?

Peace,
-chasfs

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

chasfs wrote:
> The number of off-topic posts is rising, but we
> can do something about it. We can turn this
> into a moderated newsgroup - see
>
> http :// www .landfield,com /usenet/moderators/handbook/
>
> and
>
> http :// www .faqs.org/faqs/usenet/moderation/pitfalls/
>
> Is anyone interested in becoming a moderator?

Moderation is a very bad idea on an already low volume newsgroup. It
will kill it off completely.

Greg

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:17:49 -0800, "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com >
wrote:

>chasfs wrote:
>> The number of off-topic posts is rising, but we
>> can do something about it. We can turn this
>> into a moderated newsgroup - see
>>=20
>> http :// www .landfield,com /usenet/moderators/handbook/
>>=20
>> and
>>=20
>> http :// www .faqs.org/faqs/usenet/moderation/pitfalls/
>>=20
>> Is anyone interested in becoming a moderator?
>
>Moderation is a very bad idea on an already low volume newsgroup. It=20
>will kill it off completely.

Changing the moderation status of an existing newsgroup from
unmoderated to moderated is not a practical proposition, see:

http :// www .big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=3Dpolicies:change_mod

Secondly, even if such a proposal passes (which is highly unlikely),
there are technical issues which makes it virtually impossible for a
transition from unmoderated to moderated to be effective.

It _is_ possible to create a parallell moderated group, but I rather
doubt that there will be sufficient interest.

And, as a matter of record, I should inform you that in addition to
having subscribed to and occassionally contributed to this group
throughout its existence, I am also currently a member of the "Big-8
Management Board", which is the body which makes decisions regarding
group management in the "Big-8" hierarchies, including rec.*
--=20
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
For e-mail, please refer to my website.
Website: http :// www .nareid-web.me.uk/

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

On Dec 26, 7:17 pm, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme,com > wrote:
> chasfs wrote:
> > The number of off-topic posts is rising, but we
> > can do something about it. We can turn this
> > into a moderated newsgroup - see
>
> > http :// www .landfield,com /usenet/moderators/handbook/
>
> > and
>
> > http :// www .faqs.org/faqs/usenet/moderation/pitfalls/
>
> > Is anyone interested in becoming a moderator?
>
> Moderation is a very bad idea on an already low volume newsgroup.  It
> will kill it off completely.
>
> Greg

And it sounds like an MI5 plot, to me.

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?


"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > wrote in message
news:13n56mepu4gmbc@corp.supernews,com ...
> chasfs wrote:
>> The number of off-topic posts is rising, but we
>> can do something about it. We can turn this
>> into a moderated newsgroup - see
>>
>> http :// www .landfield,com /usenet/moderators/handbook/
>>
>> and
>>
>> http :// www .faqs.org/faqs/usenet/moderation/pitfalls/
>>
>> Is anyone interested in becoming a moderator?
>
> Moderation is a very bad idea on an already low volume newsgroup. It will
> kill it off completely.
>
> Greg
>
> "low volume newsgroup" ? Yes! It's time to say goodbye to clanky
> equipment. So simple.

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

G.T. wrote:
> Moderation is a very bad idea on an already low volume newsgroup. It
> will kill it off completely.

I cannot conceive of any reason why this would be the case.

I can, however, easily conceive of the group dying out completely
when what few valid posts there are are outnumbered 20:1 or 50:1
by spam.

I can also see that moderation on a *high*-volume group would be bad,
because the volume of both valid and spam messages would be overwhelming
to the extent that the moderator would melt down.

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

scenic_man <l96wagt02@sneakemail,com > wrote:

> G.T. wrote:
>> Moderation is a very bad idea on an already low volume newsgroup. It
>> will kill it off completely.
>
> I cannot conceive of any reason why this would be the case.
>
> I can, however, easily conceive of the group dying out completely
> when what few valid posts there are are outnumbered 20:1 or 50:1
> by spam.

Really? Your's is the first OT post I've seen in months.

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

chasfs wrote:

> The number of off-topic posts is rising, but we
> can do something about it. We can turn this
> into a moderated newsgroup - see

Its quite low volume but lots in on topic. That which is on topic is
usually high value.

Pete

--
http :// www .petezilla.co.uk

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

chasfs wrote:
> The number of off-topic posts is rising, but we
> can do something about it. We can turn this
> into a moderated newsgroup - see

The number of on-topic posts is so small as to not require a moderator.
The off-T posts aren't that many that they can't be instantly dismissed.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http :// www .aliasimages,com /rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http :// www .aliasimages,com /rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http :// www .pbase,com /shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

Alan Browne wrote:
> chasfs wrote:
>> The number of off-topic posts is rising, but we
>> can do something about it. We can turn this
>> into a moderated newsgroup - see
>
> The number of on-topic posts is so small as to not require a moderator.
> The off-T posts aren't that many that they can't be instantly dismissed.

That's not the numbers I'm seeing.
Not counting the messages in *this* thread itself, I count:
158 camera/photo-related msgs (not necessarily medium format)
268 junk
That is, very nearly 2/3, or 63% of the posts are outright junk or spam.

I didn't even try to count how many are "on topic" in the sense
of being related specifically to medium-format cameras or photography.

There is clearly some good content here,
but the preponderence of junk/spam is enough to make me wonder
if it's worth my time.
It's not like the non-topic messages were commercial advertisements
for medium-format products in which I might be interested,
and whose sponsorship makes this newsgroup possible.

I haven't yet read the articles to which links were posted,
describing the why's and why-not's of converting a non-moderated group
to a moderated group, or why moderated groups are just plain bad.
It does bug me that such an argument even comes up,
in the face of the onslaught of xxxx being posted in a group such as this.

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

scenic man wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> chasfs wrote:
>>> The number of off-topic posts is rising, but we
>>> can do something about it. We can turn this
>>> into a moderated newsgroup - see
>>
>> The number of on-topic posts is so small as to not require a
>> moderator. The off-T posts aren't that many that they can't be
>> instantly dismissed.
>
> That's not the numbers I'm seeing.
> Not counting the messages in *this* thread itself, I count:
> 158 camera/photo-related msgs (not necessarily medium format)
> 268 junk
> That is, very nearly 2/3, or 63% of the posts are outright junk or spam.

I use Supernews and currently see 0 of your junk posts.

Greg

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > wrote:

> scenic_man wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> chasfs wrote:
>>>> The number of off-topic posts is rising, but we
>>>> can do something about it. We can turn this
>>>> into a moderated newsgroup - see
>>>
>>> The number of on-topic posts is so small as to not require a
>>> moderator. The off-T posts aren't that many that they can't be
>>> instantly dismissed.
>>
>> That's not the numbers I'm seeing.
>> Not counting the messages in *this* thread itself, I count:
>> 158 camera/photo-related msgs (not necessarily medium format)
>> 268 junk
>> That is, very nearly 2/3, or 63% of the posts are outright junk or
>> spam.
>
> I use Supernews and currently see 0 of your junk posts.
>
> Greg
>

I'm looking at it through Verizon and see maybe one a month on average. I
suspect the OP is a googler.

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme,com > wrote:
> I'm looking at it through Verizon and see maybe one a month on average. I
> suspect the OP is a googler.

No need to suspect that, when you can just ask. I'm using Verizon too.

It seems pretty clear that everyone is unhappy with the idea,
and everyone is unhappy that I brought it up again.

It's not like I raised the subject out of the blue.
I joined the group using an ordinary newsreader via Verizon,
like I've been reading newsgroups for a couple decades already.
(Well, not Verizon all that time, obviously,
but the same mechanics and the same netiquette.)

After wading through a lot of spam, I came across this topic,
and noticed that the objections to the idea
didn't match my observations, so I thought I'd add my $.02.

If you (that is, anyone reading this, not Lobby Dosser specifically)
believe that a discussion about how to conduct this newsgroup
is somehow off-topic, or you just don't agree with the idea,
please just stop responding to it and thereby perpetuating it.

And now back to our regularly-scheduled topics ... okay with everyone?

Re: Moderate this newsgroup?

scenic man wrote:

> There is clearly some good content here,
> but the preponderence of junk/spam is enough to make me wonder
> if it's worth my time.

Considering how seldom you post here...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http :// www .aliasimages,com /rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http :// www .aliasimages,com /rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http :// www .pbase,com /shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.