From: gfoot AT mc31 DOT merton DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (George Foot) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: c.o.m.djgpp retro-moderated? Date: 5 Mar 1997 14:41:34 GMT Organization: Oxford University Lines: 50 Message-ID: <5fk0mu$kaa@news.ox.ac.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: mc31.merton.ox.ac.uk To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il) wrote: : On 4 Mar 1997, Jesse Bennett wrote: : My real concern is how well *trustworthy* and *well-meaning* : individuals can indeed classify the borderline postings in a way that : doesn't prevent useful information from getting to people who might : find it helpful. I think this distinction would be very hard to make; this is why I suggested in an earlier post that the retro-moderator(s) would feel more comfortable if they were following set rules, rather than acting on their personal preferences. [snip] : The *real* issue here is not whether a bunch of criminals will take : control of this news group's traffic, the issue is this: how much are : we annoyed by the noise that we get on an unmoderated group, and how : much can we trust our trustees to let them cancel and/or re-route : some of the messages. That is the issue that DJ was talking about; : FWIW, I agree that it *should* be raised and discussed by everybody : who cares to make their views public. I agree. I personally do not find that there is much off-topic posting in this group (apart from this thread ;) ). I think what matters here, as DJ has pointed out before, is whether the off-topic threads and spams (few though they are) detract much from the group's effectiveness in solving problems people have with DJGPP and acting as a forum for discussion of on-topic issues. Personally I think we have recently had a few threads which were blatantly off-topic, many FAQ questions, and a large number of `borderline' cases. I think the first impression newcomers get on posting to this group is generally that almost every question gets an answer, strictly on-topic or not. There are virtually no aggressive posts; even an FAQ usually gets a polite pointer to the relevant chapter. This is an impressive situation which ought to be preserved, IMHO. It also indicates that perhaps the retro-moderation isn't required; if all questions get answered everybody is happy. The problem is when not all questions get answered... Is the weekly digest mailing-list moderated? If not, perhaps this would be a better idea than newsgroup moderation, since IHMO the mailing-list receivers are the ones most likely to be annoyed at off-topic messages, and a moderated mailing digest would give an alternative path with no spam. This probably wouldn't be practical on the daily digest, though. -- George Foot Merton College, Oxford.