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?

On Mar 23, 7:43 pm, "Paul Zak" wrote:
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?

Here you go:

Group name radio.rec.shortwave

Description This group is about shortwave radio. Period!

This group is about shortwave radio. Period!
Public website None
Get a promotion box for your website

Group address Current web address:
http://groups.google.com/group/radiorecshortwave
Current email address:

"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

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?

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)

AFAIK, there is no moderated group dedicated to SWL

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
"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

Paul Zak wrote:

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?

I would prefer a UseNet group if you can. Why is it such a PITA?

Yahoo already has a group called 'shortwave-radio'. It claims to have
1396-members but the activity calender shows there are only two new
posts this month. Even this group has more on-topic posts than that.

Here's the URL for Yahoo 'shortwave-radio'.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shortwave-radio/

To answer the question "why is it such a PITA": From
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/crea...sgroups/part1/


How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

From: (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, news.announce.newusers,
news.admin.misc
Subject: How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:25:28 GMT

Archive-name: usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1
Original-author: (Greg Woods)
Comment: enhanced & edited until 5/93 by (Gene Spafford)
Last-change: 31 Jan 1997 by (David C Lawrence)

GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATION

REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP CREATION:

These are guidelines that have been generally agreed upon across
Usenet as appropriate for following in the creating of new newsgroups
in the "standard" Usenet newsgroup hierarchy. They are NOT intended as
guidelines for setting Usenet policy other than group creations, and
they are not intended to apply to "alternate" or local news
hierarchies. The part of the namespace affected is comp, humanities,
misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk, which are the most widely-distributed
areas of the Usenet hierarchy.

Any group creation request which follows these guidelines to a
successful result should be honored, and any request which fails to
follow these procedures or to obtain a successful result from doing so
should be dropped, except under extraordinary circumstances. The
reason these are called guidelines and not absolute rules is that it
is not possible to predict in advance what "extraordinary
circumstances" are or how they might arise.

It should be pointed out here that, as always, the decision whether or
not to create a newsgroup on a given machine rests with the
administrator of that machine. These guidelines are intended merely as
an aid in making those decisions.

The Discussion

is a body of volunteers experienced with
the newsgroup creation process. They assist people who want to
propose new groups with the formation and submission of a good
proposal. It is strongly encouraged, though not required, that they
be contacted with an outline of the basic idea for a proposal, and a
mentor will work with the proponents to submit a formal proposal.
People who have experience with the process and wish to help others
should contact to join.

1) A request for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be
posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and any other
groups or mailing lists at all related to the proposed topic if
desired. news.announce.newgroups is moderated, and the
Followup-to: header will be set so that the actual discussion takes
place only in news.groups. Users on sites which have difficulty
posting to moderated groups may mail submissions intended for
news.announce.newgroups to . The proposal
must be in the format defined in "How to Format and Submit a
New Group Proposal", a pointer to which is at the end of this message.

The article should be cross-posted among the newsgroups, including
news.announce.newgroups, rather than posted as separate articles.
Note that standard behaviour for posting software is to not present
the articles in any groups when cross-posted to a moderated group;
the moderator will handle that for you.

2) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be
moderated or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator(s)
will be) should be determined during the discussion period. If
there is no general agreement on these points among the proponents
of a new group at the end of 30 days of discussion, the discussion
should be taken offline (into mail instead of news.groups) and the
proponents should iron out the details among themselves. Once that
is done, a new, more specific proposal may be made, going back to
step 1) above.

3) Group advocates seeking help in choosing a name to suit the
proposed charter, or looking for any other guidance in the creation
procedure, can send a message to ; a few
seasoned news administrators are available through this address.

The Vote

The Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) are a group of neutral
third-party vote-takers who currently handle vote gathering and
counting for all newsgroup proposals. The coordinators of the group
can be reached at ; contact them to arrange the
handling of the vote. The mechanics of vote will be handled in accord
with the paragraphs below.

1) AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new
group is really desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, and it
has been determined whether the group will be moderated and if so
who will moderate it, a call for votes may be posted to
news.announce.newgroups and any other groups or mailing lists that
the original request for discussion might have been posted
to. There should be minimal delay between the end of the discussion
period and the issuing of a call for votes. The call for votes
should include clear instructions for how to cast a vote. It must
be as clearly explained and as easy to do to cast a vote for
creation as against it, and vice versa. It is explicitly permitted
to set up two separate addresses to mail yes and no votes to
provided that they are on the same machine, to set up an address
different than that the article was posted from to mail votes to,
or to just accept replies to the call for votes article, as long as
it is clearly and explicitly stated in the call for votes article
how to cast a vote. If two addresses are used for a vote, the
reply address must process and accept both yes and no votes OR
reject them both.

2) The voting period should last for at least 21 days and no more than
31 days, no matter what the preliminary results of the vote
are. The exact date that the voting period will end should be
stated in the call for votes. Only votes that arrive on the
vote-taker's machine prior to this date will be counted.

3) A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the
vote, provided that they contain similar clear, unbiased
instructions for casting a vote as the original, and provided that
it is really a repeat of the call for votes on the SAME proposal
(see #5 below). Partial vote results should NOT be included; only a
statement of the specific new group proposal, that a vote is in
progress on it, and how to cast a vote. It is permitted to post a
"mass acknowledgement" in which all the names of those from whom
votes have been received are posted, as long as no indication is
made of which way anybody voted until the voting period is
officially over.

4) ONLY votes MAILED to the vote-taker will count. Votes posted to the
net for any reason (including inability to get mail to the
vote-taker) and proxy votes (such as having a mailing list
maintainer claim a vote for each member of the list) will not be
counted.

5) Votes may not be transferred to other, similar proposals. A vote
shall count only for the EXACT proposal that it is a response
to. In particular, a vote for or against a newsgroup under one name
shall NOT be counted as a vote for or against a newsgroup with a
different name or charter, a different moderated/unmoderated status
or (if moderated) a different moderator or set of moderators.

6) Votes MUST be explicit; they should be of the form "I vote for the
group foo.bar as proposed" or "I vote against the group foo.bar as
proposed". The wording doesn't have to be exact, it just needs to
be unambiguous. In particular, statements of the form "I would vote
for this group if..." should be considered comments only and not
counted as votes.

7) A vote should be run only for a single group proposal. Attempts to
create multiple groups should be handled by running multiple
parallel votes rather than one vote to create all of the groups.

The Result

1) At the completion of the voting period, the vote taker must post
the vote tally and the E-mail addresses and (if available) names of
the voters received to news.announce.newgroups and any other groups
or mailing lists to which the original call for votes was
posted. The tally should include a statement of which way each
voter voted so that the results can be verified.

2) AFTER the vote result is posted, there will be a 5 day waiting
period, beginning when the voting results actually appear in
news.announce.newgroups, during which the net will have a chance to
correct any errors in the voter list or the voting procedure.

3) AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections
that might invalidate the vote, and if 100 more valid YES/create
votes are received than NO/don't create AND at least 2/3 of the
total number of valid votes received are in favor of creation, a
newgroup control message may be sent out. If the 100 vote margin
or 2/3 percentage is not met, the group should not be created.

4) The newgroup message will be sent by the news.announce.newgroups
moderator at the end of the waiting period of a successful vote.

5) A proposal which has failed under point (3) above should not again
be brought up for discussion until at least six months have passed
from the close of the vote. This limitation does not apply to
proposals which never went to vote or polls that were cancelled or
invalidated.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES:

If you want to create a new group, the following additional documents
should be read before you begin the process.

Subject: How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups, news.groups

Subject: How to Write a Good Newsgroup Proposal
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups, news.groups

Subject: Usenet Newsgroup Creation Companion
Newsgroups: news.groups, news.announce.newusers, news.answers

Subject: What is Usenet?
Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers, news.admin.misc, news.answers
"HFguy" wrote in message
news:_B4Nh.988$5E3.769@trndny01...
Paul Zak wrote:

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?

I would prefer a UseNet group if you can. Why is it such a PITA?

Yahoo already has a group called 'shortwave-radio'. It claims to have
1396-members but the activity calender shows there are only two new
posts this month. Even this group has more on-topic posts than that.

Here's the URL for Yahoo 'shortwave-radio'.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shortwave-radio/

In article ,
Paul Zak wrote:
To answer the question "why is it such a PITA": From
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/crea...sgroups/part1/

How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:25:28 GMT

This is ancient history. Go read the current FAQ in news.announce.newgroup.

They just created a moderated ham radio group because of some of the
same people who infest this group, so you could use that as an example
of how it's done now.


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

Mark Zenier ) writes:
In article ,
Paul Zak wrote:
To answer the question "why is it such a PITA": From
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/crea...sgroups/part1/

How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:25:28 GMT

This is ancient history. Go read the current FAQ in news.announce.newgroup.

They just created a moderated ham radio group because of some of the
same people who infest this group, so you could use that as an example
of how it's done now.

ANd ironically, one reason I was against the creation of that newsgroup
wsa that it left the mess intact, they moved into their closed newsgroup
and left the fools that cross-posted. They only thought in terms of
the rec.radio.amateur.* hierarchy and not in terms of the rec.radio.*
hierarchy.

Obviously those cross-posted make up some of the problem, though it
ebbs and flows.

Then there's all the digital radio posts. The problem with that, like
any problem that rises up in a newsgroup, is that it starts small
and when it gets big it's much harder to stop. And then there are
the "regulars" who should know better but instead post off-topic
junk.

I should point out that it's gotten so bad that someone posted about
their weather thermometer, when it has absolutely no relevance to
the newsgroup, and to compound the problem people actually offered
up answers rather than to tell the guy to post somewhere else.

Every time this happens, people rush to the notion that a moderated
newsgroup is the answer. That Big Control is the only solution. But
there is intermediate area. The fact that nobody is posting a faq or
a guideline all these years lets the people who think rec.radio.shortwave
is to discuss politics (because some private shortwave stations are
about politics), or the people who think this is about amateur radio
(because of the "shortwave" in the title) or the people who think since
this is about radio then digital radio applies. Or even the people who
think this is some hangout to talk about just about anything, simply
because they can sound like they have an interest in the long distant
reception of radio.

It's gotten so bad that then when people have on-topic posts about FM
DXing or even longwave beacon reception, they erroneously think they
need to preface their post with an apology about the "off-topic" post.
Yet, the intent of this newsgroup, despite the name, is to include
those, while discussing politics isn't the intent. It's one thing
to discuss a radio show heard over shortwave, it's another to ignore
the radio show and simply discuss whatever was being discussed on
that radio show.

ANd I should point out, that too often when people think a moderated
newsgroup is the solution, they are only thinking in terms of getting
rid of junk, they don't really give thought to actual content for
the moderated newsgroup. I know I won't move, and I've been here a lot
longer than many. Witness when Mark Holden created a "yahoo group"
for discussion of synchronous detectors, as if that couldn't be discussed
in any number of existing newsgroups. It started out active, but soon
trickled off to nothing.

Michael