In article <14n356INNsmr at nigel.msen.com> emv at msen.com (Edward
Vielmetti) writes:
>David Steffen proposes a scheme for high volume newsgroups that reduces
>traffic by slowing the propogation of news according to geographical
>locations. Let me propose an alternative.
>
>the "sun-managers" mailing list is extremely high volume - how many
>sun owners are out there - yet still effective as a communications
>path. the secret is that they have removed some of the usual chit-chat
>that goes along the normal course of a list and added to the burden
>of the person who posts a question.
>
>the rules there (and in some other -managers groups) is that there is
>no discussion allowed in the group. Rather, the presenter of a question
>is obligated to say
> Send me your answers, I will summarize for the group
>and then to post an answer (with proper credits) with the word SUMMARY: as
>the start of the subject line. This lets the casual reader read just the
>condensed summaries of problems, puts the burden on the questioner to act
>also as editor, and increases the number of questions and answers that can
>be sent through the list.
>
>It's more work but you get better results.
That works fine in mailing lists (dec managers list is the same
rules), but I don't think that it would be enforceable in a newsgroup
unless it became moderated. Given a reasonable newsreader (e.g. one
that follows threads) I don't see any problem in reviewing the
subjects of 20 messages a day and reading a few of them.
Rather than trying to figure out a way to curb the discussions among
the net community to suite the occasional "dropper-in", I would
rather encourage them to check in more frequently. I find the one
quickly learns who provides good answers and who's not worth reading.
Judicious application of FAQ's is recommended!!!
g.
--
George Hartzell voice: (415) 725-7421
Stanford Yeast Genome Project fax: (415) 723-7016
Stanford School of Medicine, Rm S337 email: hartzell at sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU
Stanford, CA 94305-5120
