Re: Upcoming RFD: comp.compilers.unmoderated

On Thu, 5 May 2005 08:56:57 +0000 (UTC), Kunle Odutola
<noemails@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> "Trevor Jenkins" <Trevor.Jenkins@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:slrnd7jk5f.fsf.Trevor.Jenkins@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Thu, 5 May 2005 01:53:53 +0000 (UTC), Kunle Odutola
> <noemails@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> > > Perhaps because not everyone interested in discussing issues related
to
> > > compilers and language processing can (or wish to) post to the
existing
> > > moderated group?.
> >
> > Posting to a moderated or unmoderated newsgroup is the same.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that every newsgroup requires that posts
must
> be accompanied by a working email address (as is required for
> comp.compilers)?

Why not. Levine (moderator of comp.compilers) is one of the major 
advocates for anti-spam measures.

> > As to not wanting to post to the existing group why the %^&* not;
that's
> > where the compiler writing fraternity has hung out for the last 20
years.
> 
> I don't believe anyone has to justify to you why they want or don't want
to
> post to a group. And no, most compiler-related discussions have occurred
> *outside* comp.compilers. It's unusually low posting volume (compared to
> other compiler discussion forums) is evidence of that. It's archives are
and
> will continue to serves as a useful research cellar however.

The archives are useful percisely because of moderation. All the crap and 
fluff that gets into other groups doesn't appear in comp.compilers.

> > > Perhaps because it takes too darned long for posts to appear in the
> > > moderated group. It is almost always quicker to find some other
> discussion
> > > forum.
> >
> > Typical attitude in an instant society that your highly im****tant
posting
> > has to be responded to immediately. Take a look at other (unmoderated)
> > technical newsgroups and you'll see posting from undergraduates asking
for
> > help with their coursework because they are too damned lazy to do it
> > themselves.
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> It takes days for posts to appear in comp.compilers. It takes a few
minutes
> to appear in unmoderated newsgroups.

Strawman.

Perhaps the volume of postings sent to comp.compilers has increased so 
that it takes days to excise the crap.

There are moderbots around that are being used very successfully on other
newsgroups. One of those might solve your issue over latency.

> > That's because the existing moderated group is sufficient.
> 
> No, that's because *you* find the existing group sufficient for *you*.
In
> any case, the proposed RFD does just that - leaves the existing group
> untouched - so, what exactly is your argument against it?.
> 
> I notice you *still* haven't provided any sound arguments for dismissing
the
> RFD.

I don't believe I have to justify myself to you. But let's see.  
Unmoderated groups have unfocused discussions that veer way off topic.  
Unmoderated groups have off topic discussions from the start. Unmoderated
groups are open to spam. Unmoderated groups become unworkable.

> > The trend for Usenet groups has been to create new groups that not
> > unmoderated but rather moderated. This is a reaction to the spam
floods
> > and off-topic postings that the original unmoderated groups degenerate
> > into.
> 
> Interesting tidbit. Are you suggesting that it is somehow wrong to
create an
> unmoderated group because other people aren't doing it?. Is *this* your
> argument?

Not all; for the reasons above unmoderated groups have been found wanting
and moderated versions created to replace them. Unmoderated groups have a
much higher noise to signal ratio than do moderated ones.

Regards, Trevor

<>< Re: deemed!