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