or forte or tin or...
I thought a new article may be of assistance here since these questions seem to crop up from time to time:
In message , Dorothy Bradbury writes
perhaps it could be called uk.someonediditforme
Have you *any* idea of the work involved for a group of this size? Effective moderation with unlimited access means reading every single post from unknown or first time poster - and soon after it's received to be of any use. You'd probably have to allocate an hour a day 24/7.
uk.galmi (get a little man in).
...on whether your intention is just to use a 'bot to filter spam.
If your intention is human moderation...
... it would exceed that from experience moderating a mailing list, although moderators can be numerous & distributed "groupware style".
Moderating USENET is not practical. o It works well for .announce groups relating to say service providers o It works poorly for conversational discussion. I would not vote for it.
Moderation involves risk. o Moderating on spam via a 'bot is one thing o Moderating further risks censorship and loses common-carrier status o Moderating risks interest by various organisation vs responsibility of poster o Getting rid of a moderator due to high processing latency can be hard
Moderating is not practical. It is simpler to filter at the newsreader level.
And we know the sort of person that is attracted to moderating
There is also the problem that the moderation mechanism doesn't work: just take a look at comp.lang.perl.moderated - it is full of the same sort of vandalism that afflicts comp.os.linux.misc (amd I daresay other groups). Indeed I understand there is a hackers' ng in the alt. heirarchy (alt.2600?) that is moderated but has no moderators: you have to know enough to hack your way past the moderation mechanism in order to contribute to the group!
It was a guess from me being a co-moderator on a group which receives about 5 requests to join/leave per day and has some 2000 members. What we do is moderate the first post from a newbie then let them get on with it. At the first sign of anyone breaking the rules they go back on moderation. If they continue to break the rules - which are very basic anyway - apart from their posts not being forwarded to the group they get removed. Dunno how many chances they get - it's never happened to me while I've been moderating. It's a Yahoo group and very little in the way of actual spam gets even to the starting post.
There's a story I like about a shrink[1] in a loon^H^H^Hmental hospital. One of his patients claimed to be Jesus, so the shrink says "I understand you're a carpenter?". The patient has to admit that he is, so the shrink puts him to work to make some shelves for his office.
[1] Milton Ericsson, for those to whom the name means anything.
You must be joking. He'd be very keen to tell whoever was doing the work how it should be done, no doubt ... :-)
Heh heh. Most only enforce the rules of the particular group. The one I'm involved with - a car one - got set up because the founder was fed up of flame wars and excessive bad language on a similar one he read - and of course purely commercial posts. But it does have several members who are in the trade and a great source of useful information - and because of that I'm sure get benefit from it too in terms of business.
I'd be perfectly happy if this group was moderated in a similar light touch way - but it simply isn't going to happen.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:50:46 GMT someone who may be geoff wrote this:-
As has been pointed out by others, this is a DIY group and people moderate it for themselves as they see fit, rather than getting someone else to do it for them.
The message from John Stumbles contains these words:
He would also be very keen to block all the posts that highlight him as an ignorant moron with a monumental ego.
So presumably the moderator of this car group doesn't permit the interminable ding-dong threads between the likes of Drivel and certain other members of this group.....????
David
Absolutely not.
You can disagree all you want but just just repeating you're wrong or whatever without explaining why you think that certainly wouldn't be tolerated.
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
The OP doesn't seem to have much of an idea about anything concerning newsgroups, so, probably not.
In message , The Natural Philosopher writes
Well, it's a pick and mix of several religions, xtianity included
Well, a tradesman, I think is the currently accepted translation
the Nazareth Handyman
Quite so; the skills to do it properly are inversely proportional to the desire to do it.
A little discriminatory against us BFBs...
Unreadable rubbish!
If the author of this is trying to teach people about grammar and punctuation then they should first teach themselves about inverted commas.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.