moderated SWL NG
 

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?

moderated SWL NG
 

the point is, we can keep Mark@kb9rqz out of the group, and not have to
listen to his crap : D



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:43:03 -0400, "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?

what is the point?
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

moderated SWL NG
 

Not feared, DESPISED is more like it.


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:19:39 -0400, "labtech1"
wrote:

the point is, we can keep Mark@kb9rqz out of the group, and not have to
listen to his crap : D

it is interesting to be so feared
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

moderated SWL NG
 

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:

moderated SWL NG
 

"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

moderated SWL NG
 

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/

moderated SWL NG
 

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?

moderated SWL NG
 

On Mar 24, 4:42 am, "Mike Terry" wrote:
"JeroenK" wrote in message

...

HFguy schreef:

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

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be moderator.

I doubt it's that simple. The cabal that oversees usenet makes it
extremely difficult make this sort of change. Even if you had a
volunteer, making him a moderator would probably be about as hard as
starting an entirely new usenet group.

There's no easy solution. The IBOC trolls are distracting with all of
their spam, but they will move on as soon as they either get tired or
find some other group where they can offend and/or upset people.
Remember: it takes a lot of time and effort for them to post all of
this crap. Sooner or later they'll grow tired.

Steve

moderated SWL NG
 

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/

moderated SWL NG
 

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

moderated SWL NG
 

I hereby volunteer.

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...
HFguy schreef:

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

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be
moderator.

moderated SWL NG
 

"Paul Zak" wrote in message
...
I hereby volunteer.


Fantastic, thanks Paul.

moderated SWL NG
 

On 24 Mar 2007 05:26:13 -0700, "Steve" wrote
in om:

Sooner or later they'll grow tired.

That time will arrive when their provocative contributions to this
newsgroup fail to elicit responses. As long as readers are unable to
resist contributing their comments to the message thread, thus
sustaining its life, the troll will feel that his efforts are being
rewarded.

Traditionally, the means of dealing with Usenet content a reader would
prefer not to see is through the mechanism of configuring his news
reader client software, so that the messages headers containing
certain key words, or those posted by specific authors are blocked
locally from being displayed. Once undesirable message topics and/or
authors have been kill-filed, the reader suddenly sees a newsgroup
devoid of undesirable content, and the response rate to the troll's
articles begins to drop. When the troll finds his best efforts at
disruption unrewarding, the door is open for him to move along to
exercise his anti-social bent in newsgroups that haven't yet wised-up
to his trolling.

So if you truly want to see the newsgroup devoid of certain content
you find less than desirable, write some rules for your news reader's
kill file. In the end, improving the newsgroup's signal-to-noise
ratio is not about moderating the newsgroup; it's about you personally
taking responsibility for the newsgroup content you see.

moderated SWL NG
 

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...
HFguy schreef:

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

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be
moderator.




On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:47:40 -0400, "Paul Zak"
wrote in
:

I hereby volunteer.


Read the FAQ on how moderation works.
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...aqs:moderation

Then decide if you truly desire to faithfully approve or reject ALL
the hundreds of articles posted daily to rec.radio.shortwave. If a
moderator is appointed by the newsgroup readership, the readership
will be entirely dependent upon the moderator for ALL content that
appears in that newsgroup. So a moderator of a busy newsgroup like
this must be willing to devote the requisite effort of moderation
several times daily for as long as the newsgroup exists.

Personally, I'd prefer to take personal responsibility for what
newsgroup content I see, rather that have another censor my news, for
it is the unique egalitarian nature of Usenet that is its strength.

moderated SWL NG
 

I hereby volunteer.

"Then decide if you truly desire to faithfully approve or reject ALL the
hundreds of articles posted daily to rec.radio.shortwave."

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...
HFguy schreef:

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

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I
would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be
moderator.




On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:47:40 -0400, "Paul Zak"
wrote in
:

I hereby volunteer.


Read the FAQ on how moderation works.
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...aqs:moderation

Then decide if you truly desire to faithfully approve or reject ALL
the hundreds of articles posted daily to rec.radio.shortwave. If a
moderator is appointed by the newsgroup readership, the readership
will be entirely dependent upon the moderator for ALL content that
appears in that newsgroup. So a moderator of a busy newsgroup like
this must be willing to devote the requisite effort of moderation
several times daily for as long as the newsgroup exists.

Personally, I'd prefer to take personal responsibility for what
newsgroup content I see, rather that have another censor my news, for
it is the unique egalitarian nature of Usenet that is its strength.

moderated SWL NG
 

Killfiles are good & all, but the annoying off-topic posters simply open up
new accounts & continue their annoying posts, which is why a moderated NG
would work best.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 24 Mar 2007 05:26:13 -0700, "Steve" wrote
in om:

Sooner or later they'll grow tired.

That time will arrive when their provocative contributions to this
newsgroup fail to elicit responses. As long as readers are unable to
resist contributing their comments to the message thread, thus
sustaining its life, the troll will feel that his efforts are being
rewarded.

Traditionally, the means of dealing with Usenet content a reader would
prefer not to see is through the mechanism of configuring his news
reader client software, so that the messages headers containing
certain key words, or those posted by specific authors are blocked
locally from being displayed. Once undesirable message topics and/or
authors have been kill-filed, the reader suddenly sees a newsgroup
devoid of undesirable content, and the response rate to the troll's
articles begins to drop. When the troll finds his best efforts at
disruption unrewarding, the door is open for him to move along to
exercise his anti-social bent in newsgroups that haven't yet wised-up
to his trolling.

So if you truly want to see the newsgroup devoid of certain content
you find less than desirable, write some rules for your news reader's
kill file. In the end, improving the newsgroup's signal-to-noise
ratio is not about moderating the newsgroup; it's about you personally
taking responsibility for the newsgroup content you see.

moderated SWL NG
 

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)

moderated SWL NG
 

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:
....
Personally, I'd prefer to take personal responsibility for what
newsgroup content I see, rather that have another censor my news, for
it is the unique egalitarian nature of Usenet that is its strength.

This newsgroup is one the most easily provoked groups I read. If the
normal participants would just take into account that there's a small
group of asocial fools (or unbounded egotists) out there who are
deliberately trying to destroy its usefulness, we'd be a lot better off.

Ignore the bait.

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

moderated SWL NG
 

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)

moderated SWL NG
 

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:29:08 GMT, (Mark Zenier)
wrote in :

Ignore the bait.

Well put.

moderated SWL NG
 

On Mar 24, 11:18 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...
HFguy schreef:

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

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be
moderator.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:47:40 -0400, "Paul Zak"
wrote in
:

I hereby volunteer.

Read the FAQ on how moderation works.http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...aqs:moderation

Then decide if you truly desire to faithfully approve or reject ALL
the hundreds of articles posted daily to rec.radio.shortwave. If a
moderator is appointed by the newsgroup readership, the readership
will be entirely dependent upon the moderator for ALL content that
appears in that newsgroup. So a moderator of a busy newsgroup like
this must be willing to devote the requisite effort of moderation
several times daily for as long as the newsgroup exists.

Personally, I'd prefer to take personal responsibility for what
newsgroup content I see, rather that have another censor my news, for
it is the unique egalitarian nature of Usenet that is its strength.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good points all.

One arrangement I'd consider is where the group is allowed to go on as
it always has, only where someone is available who can delete obvious
and persistent attempts at trolling. If this group ever has a
moderator, I'd like it to be a manageable job for him and not
something that'll have him tearing his hair out.

moderated SWL NG
 

Telamon wrote:

You had better think about this a little more. Right now posts show up
pretty quickly. If it has to go through a moderators computer that will
slow things down even if one was to use computer automated rules instead
of human intervention.

What if the moderators or his ISP has a problem? The news group comes to
a halt. What if the moderator gets sick, busy, or wants to take a
vacation? Does the news group come to a halt or do things run like they
do now until he gets back?

Moderating a public news group is no small thing.

Translation:

If this group had a moderator I wouldn't be able to continue my HD war
with David or participate in other OT threads.

moderated SWL NG
 

In article prnNh.1375$l96.928@trndny06,
Finetime wrote:

Telamon wrote:

You had better think about this a little more. Right now posts show up
pretty quickly. If it has to go through a moderators computer that will
slow things down even if one was to use computer automated rules instead
of human intervention.

What if the moderators or his ISP has a problem? The news group comes to
a halt. What if the moderator gets sick, busy, or wants to take a
vacation? Does the news group come to a halt or do things run like they
do now until he gets back?

Moderating a public news group is no small thing.

Translation:

If this group had a moderator I wouldn't be able to continue my HD war
with David or participate in other OT threads.

Nope. I meant what I posted thank you very much. Those are very real
problems.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

moderated SWL NG
 

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:41:13 GMT, HFguy wrote in
ZqkNh.579$Rp2.288@trndny04:

That's why I've come to the
conclusion that this group needs a moderator if it is to survive as a
viable source of information on shortwave and other related topics.

How does the off-topic content threaten the survival of this
newsgroup?

moderated SWL NG
 

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:41:13 GMT, HFguy wrote in
ZqkNh.579$Rp2.288@trndny04:

That's why I've come to the
conclusion that this group needs a moderator if it is to survive as a
viable source of information on shortwave and other related topics.

How does the off-topic content threaten the survival of this
newsgroup?

Dissuades people from posting or reading the news group.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

moderated SWL NG
 

"HFguy" wrote in message
news:WskNh.580$Rp2.130@trndny04...
Paul Zak wrote:

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...

HFguy schreef:


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

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be

moderator.

I hereby volunteer.

That's great Paul. What can we do to support you with this?

I need to put some time into reading the updated info found at
news.announce.newgroup pointed out by a previous poster, as apparently I had
old info on how to create a new NG. If anyone has more or other updated
info on how to do so, let me know!

moderated SWL NG
 

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

moderated SWL NG
 

"Steve" ) writes:
On Mar 24, 11:18 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...
HFguy schreef:

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

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be
moderator.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:47:40 -0400, "Paul Zak"
wrote in
:

I hereby volunteer.

Read the FAQ on how moderation works.http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...aqs:moderation

Then decide if you truly desire to faithfully approve or reject ALL
the hundreds of articles posted daily to rec.radio.shortwave. If a
moderator is appointed by the newsgroup readership, the readership
will be entirely dependent upon the moderator for ALL content that
appears in that newsgroup. So a moderator of a busy newsgroup like
this must be willing to devote the requisite effort of moderation
several times daily for as long as the newsgroup exists.

Personally, I'd prefer to take personal responsibility for what
newsgroup content I see, rather that have another censor my news, for
it is the unique egalitarian nature of Usenet that is its strength.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good points all.

One arrangement I'd consider is where the group is allowed to go on as
it always has, only where someone is available who can delete obvious
and persistent attempts at trolling. If this group ever has a
moderator, I'd like it to be a manageable job for him and not
something that'll have him tearing his hair out.

And you can't retroactively cancel messages, not to any level of having
it work.

There is no central storage of messages. They are accumulated at your
ISP or wherever your newsserver is, and then passed on to the next newsserver,
where they take in new messages and pass on their new messages along with
your new messages, and so it goes. That's the way it's worked since 1979 when
Usenet was created.

A lot of sites will no longer accept cancel messages. At the very least, it
takes time for those cancel messages to propagate through the system, so
many will see the off-topic messages before the cancel would arrive (and
cancel it if the cancel works). So those people reply, even if the
original might disappear.

The fact that google archives the messages is irrelevant to this discussion.
They are just yet another news site, that happens to have a permanent
retention of the messages. But google is not Usenet.

Michael

moderated SWL NG
 

Telamon ) writes:

You had better think about this a little more. Right now posts show up
pretty quickly. If it has to go through a moderators computer that will
slow things down even if one was to use computer automated rules instead
of human intervention.

What if the moderators or his ISP has a problem? The news group comes to
a halt. What if the moderator gets sick, busy, or wants to take a
vacation? Does the news group come to a halt or do things run like they
do now until he gets back?

Or, the moderator or moderators disappear, and the newsgroup becomes
unuseable. That happened to one newsgroup a decade ago, and it seemed
like people talked about it (in a related newsgroup, but had no clue of
how to fix it. I started posting to it, and that caused others to
fix the problem.

But, that moderated newsgroup is pretty dead. A handful of posts each month,
virtually no traffic. If someone posts a question, then there will be
replies, but there usually isn't much more than one question a month, if
that. I posted for a while, but the moderators felt their job was not
to ensure that off-topic junk and flaming not appear, but also to slap
people for quoting too much. When I had one post rejected for that, I
abandoned the newsgroup. They can't afford to reject people for that,
not when they are providing answers, yet they do.

SOme people think moderating is the solution, but I suspect many of
them don't come from a long history with Usenet. Despite the junk,
there is a liveliness to a newsgroup that often gets lost in a moderated
newsgroup. The moderated newsgroups often become sterile.

Michael

moderated SWL NG
 

Telamon ) writes:
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:41:13 GMT, HFguy wrote in
ZqkNh.579$Rp2.288@trndny04:

That's why I've come to the
conclusion that this group needs a moderator if it is to survive as a
viable source of information on shortwave and other related topics.

How does the off-topic content threaten the survival of this
newsgroup?

Dissuades people from posting or reading the news group.

That may be the effect, but it can be countered. If people so gung
ho about moderating put their effort into posting on-topic posts,
at the very least it would raise the level of on-topic posts.

Michael

moderated SWL NG
 

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:51:50 -0400, "Paul Zak"
wrote in
:


I need to put some time into reading the updated info found at
news.announce.newgroup pointed out by a previous poster, as apparently I had
old info on how to create a new NG. If anyone has more or other updated
info on how to do so, let me know!

I thought you wanted to change this newsgroup to moderated, not create
a new one. If that is so, (although I don't support it) you'll find
information he
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...ies:change_mod

moderated SWL NG
 

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:38:21 -0400, blitz wrote in
:

Starting a moderated group is, IMO, admission of defeat. It says
enough people can't restrain themselves from responding to trolls that
it's taking down a group.

Perhaps if someone with access to a Unix system created a cron-job to
perform a monthly posting of the "Charter" of rec.radio.shortwave, it
might encourage the posting of more on-topic articles. It can be
found he http://www.faqs.org/ftp/faqs/radio/m...g/introduction

Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel .connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!Germany.EU.net!ho wland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news .mathworks.com!news.PBI.net!cbgw3.att.com!cbgw2.at t.com!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!not-for-mail
From: (Ralph Brandi)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.info,rec.answers,new s.answers
Subject: Welcome to rec.radio.shortwave
Supersedes:
Followup-To: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: 28 Jun 1996 00:09:38 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Technical Publications
Lines: 77
Approved:
Distribution: world
Expires: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:09:31 GMT
Message-ID:
Reply-To: (Ralph Brandi)
NNTP-Posting-Host: cbnews.cb.lucent.com
Summary: Newsgroup charter and history, with pointers to
more specific FAQ articles.
This article is posted monthly.
Originator: ralph@cbnews
Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu rec.radio.shortwave:78431 rec.radio.info:11638 rec.answers:21852 news.answers:75379

Posted-By: auto-faq 3.1.1.2
Archive-name: radio/monitoring/introduction

[Last modified: June 30, 1995]

By Ralph Brandi,


Welcome to the rec.radio.shortwave newsgroup. This group was created late in
1989 after a suggestion by Richard Shapiro, in order for those of us who are
interested in the hobby of monitoring radio communications to have a friendly
place to exchange messages, tips, and opinions. If you are interested in this
sort of hobby, then we think that you will be at home here.

This is a set of monthly postings put together to answer some of the more
commonly asked basic questions about the hobby. There is a posting explaining
some of the basics of shortwave (HF) radio, and one covering medium wave (also
known as AM) and FM DXing. There is also one covering scanning the higher
frequencies (VHF and up) that appears in the newsgroup rec.radio.scanner. If
you find that you have other questions, either following up items mentioned
here, or other questions, please post. There are a number of people here with
varying degrees of expertise and experience who are more than willing to help.
We hope we've anticipated many of the questions the beginner will have. And
so, without further ado....


o What is rec.radio.shortwave for?

As stated above this group was created for USENETers to have a place to discuss
the radio monitoring hobby. This group is not moderated, however 'serious'
arguments and any kind of flame wars are strongly discouraged. That is not to
say that genuine disagreement and discussion of differing opinions is not
welcome. We only ask that you keep the tone friendly, and in the spirit of
international cooperation upon which the hobby is founded.

This group is intended to be a place where ANY radio monitoring topic can and
should be discussed. We are happy to hear from posters who listen to any part
of the radio or microwave spectrum, from DC to daylight. We discuss topics of
almost any kind, ranging from (but not limited to) shortwave broadcasting,
DXing small or distant shortwave stations, utility and teletype monitoring,
military eavesdropping, station schedules, QSLing sw broadcasters, spectrum
usage, equipment design and modifications, antennas, receiver reviews and
recommendations, and many more.

Despite what the newsgroup name might imply, we definitely DO NOT limit
discussions to shortwave only. Any radio-related topics are welcome.
People interested in scanning VHF frequencies may find that the
rec.radio.scanner newsgroup more accurately reflects their interests, and
people interested in pirate radio may want to check the alt.radio.pirate
newsgroup, although this group seems to be more interested in building small
FM transmitters than in hearing distant shortwave pirates.


For more in-depth answers to questions you may have, we direct your attention
to the postings entitled "Welcome to rec.radio.shortwave (Shortwave)", and
"Welcome to rec.radio.shortwave (AM/FM DXing)", depending on where your
interests lie. Scanner enthusiasts are also encouraged to read Bob Parnass'
excellent monthly FAQ postings on rec.radio.scanner.

FAQ, of course, stands for Frequently Asked Questions. It is considered
good form to read the FAQ(s) for a newsgroup before posting to ensure
that ones posting is appropriate. You can find FAQs for most newsgroups at
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet by anonymous ftp, or on WWW at
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypert.../FAQ-List.html . Look
under the following URL for a list of all radio-related FAQs.

http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypert...radio/top.html

P.S. For those of you without the patience to look in the appropriate
place, the BBC World Service can be reached by e-mail at
. This has become probably the single
most frequently requested piece of information on rec.radio.shortwave.

--
Ralph Brandi att!mtunp!ralph

Stay idiot-proof. --Log, "Idiot Proof"

moderated SWL NG
 

On Mar 25, 12:07 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:38:21 -0400, blitz wrote in
:

Starting a moderated group is, IMO, admission of defeat. It says
enough people can't restrain themselves from responding to trolls that
it's taking down a group.

Perhaps if someone with access to a Unix system created a cron-job to
perform a monthly posting of the "Charter" of rec.radio.shortwave, it
might encourage the posting of more on-topic articles. It can be
found hehttp://www.faqs.org/ftp/faqs/radio/m...g/introduction



Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!n*ews.me l.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!Germany.EU.net!h owland.reston.ans.n*et!newsfeed.internetmci.com!ne ws.mathworks.com!news.PBI.net!cbgw3.att.com!c*bgw2 .att.com!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!not-for-mail
From: (Ralph Brandi)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.info,rec.answers,new s.answers
Subject: Welcome to rec.radio.shortwave
Supersedes:
Followup-To: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: 28 Jun 1996 00:09:38 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Technical Publications
Lines: 77
Approved:
Distribution: world
Expires: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:09:31 GMT
Message-ID:
Reply-To: (Ralph Brandi)
NNTP-Posting-Host: cbnews.cb.lucent.com
Summary: Newsgroup charter and history, with pointers to
more specific FAQ articles.
This article is posted monthly.
Originator: ralph@cbnews
Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu rec.radio.shortwave:78431 rec.radio.info:11638 rec.answers:21852 news.answers:75379

Posted-By: auto-faq 3.1.1.2
Archive-name: radio/monitoring/introduction

[Last modified: June 30, 1995]

By Ralph Brandi,

Welcome to the rec.radio.shortwave newsgroup. This group was created late in
1989 after a suggestion by Richard Shapiro, in order for those of us who are
interested in the hobby of monitoring radio communications to have a friendly
place to exchange messages, tips, and opinions. If you are interested in this
sort of hobby, then we think that you will be at home here.

This is a set of monthly postings put together to answer some of the more
commonly asked basic questions about the hobby. There is a posting explaining
some of the basics of shortwave (HF) radio, and one covering medium wave (also
known as AM) and FM DXing. There is also one covering scanning the higher
frequencies (VHF and up) that appears in the newsgroup rec.radio.scanner.. If
you find that you have other questions, either following up items mentioned
here, or other questions, please post. There are a number of people here with
varying degrees of expertise and experience who are more than willing to help.
We hope we've anticipated many of the questions the beginner will have. And
so, without further ado....

o What is rec.radio.shortwave for?

As stated above this group was created for USENETers to have a place to discuss
the radio monitoring hobby. This group is not moderated, however 'serious'
arguments and any kind of flame wars are strongly discouraged. That is not to
say that genuine disagreement and discussion of differing opinions is not
welcome. We only ask that you keep the tone friendly, and in the spirit of
international cooperation upon which the hobby is founded.

This group is intended to be a place where ANY radio monitoring topic can and
should be discussed. We are happy to hear from posters who listen to any part
of the radio or microwave spectrum, from DC to daylight. We discuss topics of
almost any kind, ranging from (but not limited to) shortwave broadcasting,
DXing small or distant shortwave stations, utility and teletype monitoring,
military eavesdropping, station schedules, QSLing sw broadcasters, spectrum
usage, equipment design and modifications, antennas, receiver reviews and
recommendations, and many more.

Despite what the newsgroup name might imply, we definitely DO NOT limit
discussions to shortwave only. Any radio-related topics are welcome.
People interested in scanning VHF frequencies may find that the
rec.radio.scanner newsgroup more accurately reflects their interests, and
people interested in pirate radio may want to check the alt.radio.pirate
newsgroup, although this group seems to be more interested in building small
FM transmitters than in hearing distant shortwave pirates.

For more in-depth answers to questions you may have, we direct your attention
to the postings entitled "Welcome to rec.radio.shortwave (Shortwave)", and
"Welcome to rec.radio.shortwave (AM/FM DXing)", depending on where your
interests lie. Scanner enthusiasts are also encouraged to read Bob Parnass'
excellent monthly FAQ postings on rec.radio.scanner.

FAQ, of course, stands for Frequently Asked Questions. It is considered
good form to read the FAQ(s) for a newsgroup before posting to ensure
that ones posting is appropriate. You can find FAQs for most newsgroups at
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenetby anonymous ftp, or on WWW at
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypert.../FAQ-List.html. Look
under the following URL for a list of all radio-related FAQs.

http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypert...radio/top.html

P.S. For those of you without the patience to look in the appropriate
place, the BBC World Service can be reached by e-mail at
. This has become probably the single
most frequently requested piece of information on rec.radio.shortwave.

--
Ralph Brandi att!mtunp!ralph

Stay idiot-proof. --Log, "Idiot Proof"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I wonder if there's any provision for updating a group charter. The
one for this group is really old, and the group now faces problems
with off-topic posting that the charter authors were not in a position
to anticipate. Just making the charter more 'current' would probably
help matters.

Steve

moderated SWL NG
 

In article ,
"Paul Zak" wrote:

"HFguy" wrote in message
news:WskNh.580$Rp2.130@trndny04...
Paul Zak wrote:

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...

HFguy schreef:


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

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be

moderator.

I hereby volunteer.

That's great Paul. What can we do to support you with this?

I need to put some time into reading the updated info found at
news.announce.newgroup pointed out by a previous poster, as apparently I had
old info on how to create a new NG. If anyone has more or other updated
info on how to do so, let me know!

I think that can be done. It's just a file describing the news group.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

moderated SWL NG
 

In article .com,
"Steve" wrote:

On Mar 25, 12:07 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:38:21 -0400, blitz wrote in
:

Starting a moderated group is, IMO, admission of defeat. It says
enough people can't restrain themselves from responding to trolls that
it's taking down a group.

Perhaps if someone with access to a Unix system created a cron-job to
perform a monthly posting of the "Charter" of rec.radio.shortwave, it
might encourage the posting of more on-topic articles. It can be
found hehttp://www.faqs.org/ftp/faqs/radio/m...g/introduction



Path:
senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!n
*ews.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!Germany. EU.net!howland.reston.ans.
n*et!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com! news.PBI.net!cbgw3.att.com
!c*bgw2.att.com!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!not-for-mail
From: (Ralph Brandi)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.info,rec.answers,new s.answers
Subject: Welcome to rec.radio.shortwave
Supersedes:
Followup-To: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: 28 Jun 1996 00:09:38 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Technical Publications
Lines: 77
Approved:
Distribution: world
Expires: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:09:31 GMT
Message-ID:
Reply-To: (Ralph Brandi)
NNTP-Posting-Host: cbnews.cb.lucent.com
Summary: Newsgroup charter and history, with pointers to
more specific FAQ articles.
This article is posted monthly.
Originator: ralph@cbnews
Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu rec.radio.shortwave:78431
rec.radio.info:11638 rec.answers:21852 news.answers:75379

Posted-By: auto-faq 3.1.1.2
Archive-name: radio/monitoring/introduction

[Last modified: June 30, 1995]

By Ralph Brandi,

Welcome to the rec.radio.shortwave newsgroup. This group was created late
in
1989 after a suggestion by Richard Shapiro, in order for those of us who
are
interested in the hobby of monitoring radio communications to have a
friendly
place to exchange messages, tips, and opinions. If you are interested in
this
sort of hobby, then we think that you will be at home here.

This is a set of monthly postings put together to answer some of the more
commonly asked basic questions about the hobby. There is a posting
explaining
some of the basics of shortwave (HF) radio, and one covering medium wave
(also
known as AM) and FM DXing. There is also one covering scanning the higher
frequencies (VHF and up) that appears in the newsgroup rec.radio.scanner.
If
you find that you have other questions, either following up items
mentioned
here, or other questions, please post. There are a number of people here
with
varying degrees of expertise and experience who are more than willing to
help.
We hope we've anticipated many of the questions the beginner will have.
And
so, without further ado....

o What is rec.radio.shortwave for?

As stated above this group was created for USENETers to have a place to
discuss
the radio monitoring hobby. This group is not moderated, however
'serious'
arguments and any kind of flame wars are strongly discouraged. That is
not to
say that genuine disagreement and discussion of differing opinions is not
welcome. We only ask that you keep the tone friendly, and in the spirit
of
international cooperation upon which the hobby is founded.

This group is intended to be a place where ANY radio monitoring topic can
and
should be discussed. We are happy to hear from posters who listen to any
part
of the radio or microwave spectrum, from DC to daylight. We discuss
topics of
almost any kind, ranging from (but not limited to) shortwave broadcasting,
DXing small or distant shortwave stations, utility and teletype
monitoring,
military eavesdropping, station schedules, QSLing sw broadcasters,
spectrum
usage, equipment design and modifications, antennas, receiver reviews and
recommendations, and many more.

Despite what the newsgroup name might imply, we definitely DO NOT limit
discussions to shortwave only. Any radio-related topics are welcome.
People interested in scanning VHF frequencies may find that the
rec.radio.scanner newsgroup more accurately reflects their interests, and
people interested in pirate radio may want to check the alt.radio.pirate
newsgroup, although this group seems to be more interested in building
small
FM transmitters than in hearing distant shortwave pirates.

For more in-depth answers to questions you may have, we direct your
attention
to the postings entitled "Welcome to rec.radio.shortwave (Shortwave)", and
"Welcome to rec.radio.shortwave (AM/FM DXing)", depending on where your
interests lie. Scanner enthusiasts are also encouraged to read Bob
Parnass'
excellent monthly FAQ postings on rec.radio.scanner.

FAQ, of course, stands for Frequently Asked Questions. It is considered
good form to read the FAQ(s) for a newsgroup before posting to ensure
that ones posting is appropriate. You can find FAQs for most newsgroups
at
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenetby anonymous ftp, or on WWW at
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypert.../FAQ-List.html. Look
under the following URL for a list of all radio-related FAQs.

http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypert...radio/top.html

P.S. For those of you without the patience to look in the appropriate
place, the BBC World Service can be reached by e-mail at
. This has become probably the single
most frequently requested piece of information on rec.radio.shortwave.

--
Ralph Brandi att!mtunp!ralph

Stay idiot-proof. --Log, "Idiot Proof"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I wonder if there's any provision for updating a group charter. The
one for this group is really old, and the group now faces problems
with off-topic posting that the charter authors were not in a position
to anticipate. Just making the charter more 'current' would probably
help matters.

Oops. I earlier responded to the wrong post. I meant to respond to this
one. I think the charter can be updated to include more information.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

moderated SWL NG
 

Absolutely right, which is why I also considered a Yahoo NG . . .

blitz wrote in message ...
Paul Zak writes...
"HFguy" wrote in message
news:WskNh.580$Rp2.130@trndny04...
Paul Zak wrote:

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...

HFguy schreef:


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

I have no idea, but this NG being moderated would be something I
would
defenitally vote for.

--
JeroenK

Hi - I agree, it would be wonderful if someone volunteered to be

moderator.

I hereby volunteer.

That's great Paul. What can we do to support you with this?

I need to put some time into reading the updated info found at
news.announce.newgroup pointed out by a previous poster, as apparently I
had
old info on how to create a new NG. If anyone has more or other updated
info on how to do so, let me know!

Basically 'voting' is done by a board now, but all the other
suggestions about a clear topic, well-named group, and especially
justification still apply.

The board seems more inclined to support moderated groups lately,
since it's apparent many people don't/won't use a kill file for
disruptive posters.

Starting a moderated group is, IMO, admission of defeat. It says
enough people can't restrain themselves from responding to trolls that
it's taking down a group.

And you still might get your group, but you'll have to invest the time
in working out all the details, including a list of moderators. You
won't be able to handle it all on your own. this includes dealing with
putting together a proposal, posting in
news.groups/news.groups.proposals to work out that proposal,
'encouraging' users to request the new group on their server (since
most won't add it on your request, if you're not a customer), and
emailing those same providers/servers for months afterwards, getting
them to flag the group correctly as moderated.

None of that guarantees the group will catch on.

moderated SWL NG
 

I'll study that link - thanx!

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:51:50 -0400, "Paul Zak"
wrote in
:


I need to put some time into reading the updated info found at
news.announce.newgroup pointed out by a previous poster, as apparently I
had
old info on how to create a new NG. If anyone has more or other updated
info on how to do so, let me know!

I thought you wanted to change this newsgroup to moderated, not create
a new one. If that is so, (although I don't support it) you'll find
information he
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...ies:change_mod

moderated SWL NG
 

On 25 Mar 2007 09:22:34 -0700, "Steve" wrote
in .com:


I wonder if there's any provision for updating a group charter.

I'm not sure. You might inquire that issue with the big-8:


The one for this group is really old, and the group now faces problems
with off-topic posting that the charter authors were not in a position
to anticipate. Just making the charter more 'current' would probably
help matters.

Steve

It would be interesting to know to which subjects you are referring,
but we might easily address those issues in a newsgroup FAQ.

moderated SWL NG
 

Paul Zak schreef:
Absolutely right, which is why I also considered a Yahoo NG . . .


There is already an excellent Yahoo Group, the DXLD from Glenn Hauser.
All the other groups have zero or only reposted articles from other
Yahoo Groups. Well, there is one antenna group that is active.

--
JeroenK