Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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: |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS) | Policy | |||
3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS) | Dx | |||
3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS) | Equipment | |||
3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS) | Homebrew | |||
Stopping the vandals - Was: RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated | General |