Re: Upcoming RFD: comp.compilers.unmoderated

"Trevor Jenkins" <Trevor.Jenkins@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:slrnd7k0qe.i2j.Trevor.Jenkins@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 5 May 2005 08:56:57 +0000 (UTC), Kunle Odutola
<noemails@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> > > 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.

You didn't answer my question.

> > > 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.

The archives are useful because they can be searched electronically. Not
everything in them is useful to everybody. I routinely search across
moderated and unmoderated groups.

> > 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.

Perhaps. Consider this, if we were conducting this discussion in a
moderated
forum like comp.compilers, I may as yet not have seen your first post (or
the OP for that matter)!!

> > > 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.

If you are calling for the RFD to be dismissed, you do have to provide
sound
arguments to sup****t your position.

> But let's see.
> Unmoderated groups have unfocused discussions that veer way off topic.

Unmoderated groups *can* have unfocused discussions that *may* veer way
off
topic.  As can moderated groups. It depends on the moderator.

> Unmoderated groups have off topic discussions from the start.

Unmoderated groups *may* have off topic discussions from the start. As can
moderated groups. It depends on the moderator.

> Unmoderated groups are open to spam.

Unmoderated groups are *more* open to spam.

> Unmoderated groups become unworkable.

*Any usenet* group may become unworkable. For instance, moderated groups
often become unworkable for interactive discussions due to latency issues.

In any case, these aren't sound arguments against the RFD. Just a
statement
of your opinions (or biases) about unmoderated groups in general.

> > 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.

Moderated versions usually co-exist alongside the unmoderated ones. They
rarely replace them.

Kunle