Subject:
|
Re: The name/purpose of the QOTD group
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 May 1999 22:51:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
531 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, lar@voyager.net (Larry Pieniazek) writes:
> Mike Stanley wrote:
> >
> > Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> > > I was serious about this. Make it moderated. I'm disappointed that not
> > > one person even said "what a lame idea"... :-)
> >
> > I thought the lameness of the idea was self-evident. :)
>
> Really? Why? Do tell.
>
> Seems a natural for a moderated group. And we need to experiment with
> them here anyway. Heck, I volunteer to moderate it (for 6 months, no
> more).
Hey Lar,
You -do- know what's involved in moderating, right? You get mailed an NNTP
article via SMTP, which you then import into an editor, munge the headers,
add an 'Approved-By' header, and then repost via NNTP. There are tools to
help with this, but I can't guarantee that they work on an MS OS.
I would probably try out pseudo-auto-moderation before subjecting anyone
(even a willing volunteer) to the process of human moderation. The
.announce group, for example, is pseudo-auto-moderated in that it requires
the Followup-To header to be set on articles posted there. That has worked
out pretty darn well. The old .cad.dat group was also pseudo-auto-
moderated, but in a different way, and that also worked out pretty darn
well.
I think even without moderation, though, once a group gets going and people
see what's already there, they see what's expected in the group and
(generally) stick to that, learning by example.
A couple more cases in point... Although the .admin.statistics group is
technically postable-to by anyone, no one has ever tried any antics/stunts
like launching a discussion there. Because they see what's there and they
know that it's only posted to by the system. And the .announce.lsahs group
is also postable-to by anyone, but no one has ever yet tried launching a
disucssion there, either.
For the QOTD group (if it stays around) a requirement could easily be set up
which requires that new threads -not be started- in the .qotd group (that
is, that all messages posted there must be followups to other messages,
presumably from other groups). That would probably go a long way toward
curbing the traffic there. And if -that- didn't have a positive effect,
then the requirements could be further extended by requiring that the parent
node of a new incoming article actually exist in a different group --
although this would effectively prevent followups with useful commentary or
"ROTFL"s.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The name/purpose of the QOTD group
|
| (...) Yes. Long term you will probably provide an interface for members to do this easily. Till then, no problem. I'll have my lar@voyager.net account receive these. Munging the headers should not be a problem from there. It would be hard to do (...) (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
