In article vE4Nh.990$5E3.429@trndny01, HFguy wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

"Paul Zak" ) writes:

Looks like it's a HUGE P.I.T.A. to start up a UseNet NG, so I am considering
starting up a Yahoo moderated SWL NG instead. What's the interest level?



Chances are pretty good such a thing already exists. One of the problems
(but not the only one) with Yahoo "groups" or even the google-specific
"groups" is that it's way too easy to create them. SO they get created on
a whim, or for vanity reasons, or whatever, but creating a group doesn't
actually mean anything happens in it. So you just crowd things up with
another "group" that goes nowhere. (Which is why there is a whole process
to create Usenet newsgroups, it's not to keep valid newsgroups from
being created, it's there to make sure there is an actually good reason
to create yet another newsgroup.)

And since it's so easy to create those "groups", what you end up with
is a very balkanized situation. INstead of one hierarchy that is
easy to find and covers various areas, you get all kinds of "groups"
all over the place, where they are less easy to find. And then it
takes away from the existing discussion. It gets worse when the "group"
doesn't even go very far.

Michael

What would it take to add a moderator to this group?

It's not really possible to take an existing group and change its
status to moderated. That's because, to prevent vandalism, most
news servers are configured to not accept automatic configuration.
Getting all the news administrators to manually change a newsgroup's
status at some defined changeover date is pretty much impossible.

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)