home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!news.netmbx.de!mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE!math.fu-berlin.de!ira.uka.de!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!mccall!mccall!tp
- Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
- Subject: re: Re: Moderated VAX Info List?
- Message-ID: <1993Jan26.093410@mccall.com>
- From: tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot)
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:34:10 CST
- Reply-To: tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot)
- References: <9301221945.AA24884@uu3.psi.com>
- Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA
- Nntp-Posting-Host: mis1
- Nntp-Posting-User: tp
- Lines: 215
-
-
- [Sorry for the delay in responding, it's a long message and I waited till I had
- the time to answer it properly.]
-
- In article <9301221945.AA24884@uu3.psi.com>, leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter)
- writes:
- >Years ago (6-8, perhaps - yes, I've been an INFO-VAX denizen for a LONG time),
- >calls for a DIGESTED INFO-VAX arose periodically. They never went anywhere,
- >and it's curious that the topic - and the closely related one of moderation -
- >remained silent for so long. My own objection to a digest is that it makes
- >it difficult to respond to individual messages. I like to be able to type
- >REPLY, copy to INFOVAX, and edit my reply into the original message - as I'm
- >(almost) doing here.
-
- Also makes it hard to read a little at a time. while doing something else in
- another window, which is frequently how I read news. With large digests, I print
- them out and take them on breaks to read. That certainly makes replying
- inconvenient, so I usually don't.
-
- >...
- > I've long expected comp.os.vms/info-vax to die under its own weight,
- > and it seems to be happening.
- >
- >Here, I agree.
- >
- > I consider the use of a mailing list to
- > be the root cause.
- >
- >Here, I absolutely DISagree. The INFO-VAX mailing list has been around for a
- >VERY long time. I don't know exactly how far back it dates, but I think I've
- >been a subscriber since roughly 1984. During most of its life, INFO-VAX has
- >had a reasonably good signal-to-noise ratio, and while it's seen periodic
- >flame wars, they have in the past died out fairly quickly. In fact, the
- >current flame wars easily exceed anything I've ever seen on this group,
- >whether you measure number of postings, length of time, or even degree of
- >vitriole.
- >
- >My own feeling is that the root cause is that it is the NEWSGROUP side that is
- >to blame. Flame wars are common on Usenet, even expected. That attitude has
- >spilled over to the mailing list side. But there are other factors at work.
-
- Depends, I guess, on how you look at the causality. The problems, IMHO, are
- because info-vax is too large. It covers too broad a range of topics, and
- therefore has a large volume of users who don't all share the same interests.
- The volume almost certainly is attributable to the newsgroup. However, with a
- newsgroup, you solve these problems by subdividing into more focused
- newsgroups.
-
- For example, on VMSnet, there is not only vmsnet.misc, which is directly
- comparable (in topic) to info-vax. You also have vmsnet.sysmgt for system
- management and vmsnet.internals (for internals, of course). Internals traffic
- doesn't go to vmsnet.sysmgt and vice-versa. This reduces the number of people
- and the volume in any one group, and the people in a group tend to have similar
- interests and (to some degree) levels of expertise. This reduces the likelihood
- of the sorts of flames we've seen here lately, which are caused by mixing
- newbies with seasoned (but intolerant) veterans.
-
- However, comp.os.vms can't be split, because the new groups wouldn't be
- gatewayed to info-vax. mailing list users would continue to use info-vax, and
- the split off groups would very likely fail. _That_ is why I blame the mailing
- list, because it prevents the usual strategies for improving this situation. Not
- that newsgroups are a magic bullet, but it reduces the propensity for such
- things, making them less common.
-
- >Call me elitist for saying so, but the newsgroup side has made it too easy for
- >people to jump right it. Joining a mailing list takes a certain amount of
- >effort, and many people with only a tangential interest won't bother.
-
- Many with a direct interest won't bother, because they don't feel that a mailing
- list is a useful way to carry on such conferences. I'm certain I'm not alone in
- feeling this way.
-
- >Also,
- >the volume of mail from this list drives off those who might join anyway.
-
- Of course. Getting that much stuff in your mailbox obscures the important stuff
- (mail from your boss), and is harder to sift through than news. Just 2 reasons
- mail isn't good for conferencing. And of course, it will drive off as many good
- people as "undesireables". Perhaps more. Knowledgeable people are busy people,
- and are perhaps less likely to be willing to deal with a mailing list. (Pure
- conjecture on my part, I have no data on this.)
-
- >The connection to the newsgroup has made life much less pleasant for those of
- >us left on the mailing list side. Messages from the newsgroup side are often
- >delayed for days before we see them; then, they often appear twice.
-
- Those appear to be problems with the gateways. I frequently get responses to
- postings within an hour or 2, and I'm on uucp, which introduces an average of 30
- minutes of delay before my postings get to the internet. I got the emailed copy
- of your article 23 hours before the posted one. Your reply was 2 days after my
- article.
-
- It appears there are significant delays in gatewaying the mailing list to the
- newsgroup and/or vice-versa, or perhaps with the list reflector itself (though
- you seem to imply that the delays don't occur between people on the mailing
- list).
-
- Based on the speed of responses I see to my articles, and the times on articles
- I respond to, there is no such overall delay on the newsgroup side. The most
- current article in comp.os.vms is in general, according to the Date: header, no
- more than 2-3 hours old. (Spot check, currently the newest article is 50 minutes
- old, second newest is under 2 hours; I only looked at the last 6 articles in the
- group, so there may be more recent ones.)
-
- >Most
- >messages have no usable return address; this one is an example. Until the
- >great changeover, I could almost always use REPLY to reply directly to the
- >poster of an INFO-VAX message; now, it's very rare for me to be able to.
-
- We don't see that problem either. Most addresses are replyable. BTW, another
- thing the gateway does wrong is it puts "Distribution: world" in each article.
- Not all sites support this distribution (though they probably should). Leaving
- out the distribution header is better. The Distribution header can only serve to
- restrict articles. For best propagation, they should not be restricted at all.
-
- >(My own personal choice is to send one copy of a reply directly to the poster
- >and one to INFO-VAX itself, wherever possible. I make an exception for people
- >who ask for a reply only to them - in that case, I deliberately reply only
- >to INFO-VAX.)
-
- I may suggest that as a feature to the author of my news-reader. It is sometimes
- annoying though, to get and answer such a message, not realizing it has also
- been posted, and see it a few days later on the list. Do you dig out your reply
- and post it (if you still have it)? A relatively small annoyance, but if I do
- suggest the feature, I'm going to suggest he prepend a message saying the mail
- message is a copy of a posted followup.
-
- > It focuses all the traffic in one place. More
- > tightly focused newsgroups, such as vmsnet.internals and vmsnet.sysmgt
- > have much higher signal-to-noise ratios.
- >
- >I follow these as well. They are very low volume groups; I question their
- >viability. I think they survive only because they are linked to the larger
- >"info-vax" complex.
-
- You mean in spite of it. They are low volume only because of info-vax. People
- still post here because of the large talent pool on the mailing list that can
- not receive messages posted to the groups. Even if they cross-post, responses
- from the mailing list will only go to comp.os.vms, of course, since the mailing
- list can't preserve cross-posts. If the mailing list went away, I'm confident
- comp.os.vms would gradually die out as traffic moved to VMSnet.
-
- >In any case, except during high-flame periods, INFO-VAX has never struck me
- >as covering too broad an area. About the only thing one MIGHT split off are
- >DECwindows/MOTIF related questions, which often to have a rather different
- >flavor from other questions and seem to come from, and draw answers from, a
- >slightly different community. But there aren't enough of them to really be a
- >problem. in my judgement.
-
- The internals and TPU groups are good examples of focused groups that cover
- their areas better than comp.os.vms does, draw posters not particularly active
- on comp.os.vms, and aren't related to each other to speak of. We have some true
- tpu experts in vmsnet.tpu who aren't in this group (or hardly at all). The
- internals people are more active here than the tpu people, but not as much as in
- vmsnet.internals. I think this shows that comp.os.vms is too broad, as those
- constituencies left when they had a chance. Even the effects of the mailing list
- haven't managed to hold them here.
-
- OBTW, one reason you see a different crowd answering DECwindows questions is
- those questions are crossposted to the X groups (comp.windows.x,
- comp.windows.x.motif, etc.), and so some of the answers aren't coming from the
- comp.os.vms/info-vax communities at all, but from the X community. Of course, if
- you reply to such a posting on the mailing list, those people won't see it,
- since the mailing list can't support cross-posting.
-
- >A beginners/wizards split has also been proposed many, many times over the
- >years - though, again, not recently. (INFO-VAX went through a period of
- >perhaps 3 or 4 years when there is remarkly little "meta-discussion"; it
- >just seemed to work.) I doubt this would work. The problem, as always, is
- >how to keep those who can give good answers to beginner's questions interested
- >active in the group.
-
- Agreed.
-
- >My situation is exactly the opposite. If a moderated mailing list were to
- >appear, I would be glad to give it a try. A newsgroup, of any type, is of
- >no interest to me.
-
- Different strokes...
-
- >Let me explain why. I follow newsgroups from my "day job" at Rutgers. I
- >read INFO-VAX here at LRW (my "night" job, as it were). My system here does
- >not receive news, nor will it until a very different kind of news program
- >comes into existence. Since I would be the only person reading news here,
- >it makes no sense at all for news to stick around, waiting to expire, after
- >I have read it. Conversely, when I'm away and DON'T have a chance to read
- >news, it should NEVER expire. The mail model is exactly right for the way I
- >use this system; the news model is exactly wrong.
-
- I've got some DCL code that could be modified to do that fairly easily. You'd
- simply set the expiration interval infinite, and then run a periodic DCL job
- that would delete articles that you've read. I do this with source groups. I
- never automatically expire them, because I don't want to miss anything. After
- I've read some or all articles in a source group and done whatever I want with
- them, I manually run a DCL proc that deletes all the articles I've read, and
- leaves those I haven't alone.
-
- The nightly skim job then updates the ANU indexed files to note that the files
- are gone. This is works great. The only difference for you would be that you'd
- do it on all groups, rather than a select set, and you'd do it in a repeating
- batch job rather than manually.
-
- I find this superior to getting the source postings in mail. The reason I do all
- this in the first place is so I can let them sit there until I want to deal with
- them. I don't want them cluttering up my mailbox. I'd probably file them off to
- some folder, never to be seen again (except indirectly in disk usage
- summaries!).
-
- I think it might be more profitable for you to focus on the conferencing and
- user interaction model that makes the most sense to you. Management can always
- be automated, and if the default methods don't suit you, they can be adjusted.
- --
- Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com> The McCall Pattern Company
- (uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp) 615 McCall Road
- (800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041 Manhattan, KS 66502, USA
-