Re: Moderated sci.astro.amateur
- From: Chris L Peterson <clp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:03:34 GMT
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
<andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The process for creating a sci.* group isn't straightforward but
not insurmountable either. Basically want you'd need are a charter
specifying what is and is not on topic, moderation policy, and of
course at least one, though preferably several, moderators.
What's the feeling in the group for doing this?
I doubt I'd follow any moderated newsgroup. Moderation takes time, and
tends to break dialogs.
Speaking personally,
I find reading this group largely to be a waste of time due to the
nuts - a moderated group could be far more useful.
There are only a few nuts, they just tend to be prolific. But with a few
simple filters, there's really no reason to see much of it. When a
useless topic shows up, it's four clicks and no thinking to drop a
30-day kill filter in place, and that's the last I see of it.
Practically everything I see on SAA is topical (or close enough for my
tastes).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Moderated sci.astro.amateur
- From: elaich
- Re: Moderated sci.astro.amateur
- From: lal_truckee
- Re: Moderated sci.astro.amateur
- References:
- Moderated sci.astro.amateur
- From: Martin R. Howell
- Re: Moderated sci.astro.amateur
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Moderated sci.astro.amateur
- From: Andrew Smallshaw
- Moderated sci.astro.amateur
- Prev by Date: Re: Moderated sci.astro.amateur
- Next by Date: Re: what has happened to people
- Previous by thread: Re: Moderated sci.astro.amateur
- Next by thread: Re: Moderated sci.astro.amateur
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|