PART 2 - MODERATING THE BIOSCI/bionet NEWSGROUPS
bss166 at clss1.bangor.ac.uk
Tue Feb 28 07:21:33 EST 1995
On Tue, 28 Feb 1995 skoufos at nefeli.imbb.forth.gr wrote:
> kristoff at net.bio.net (David Kristofferson) writes:
> >Finally, if everyone was moving away from mail to news then there
> >would be less of a need for some of these issues; unfortunately both
> >kinds of usage continue to increase although the percentage seems to
> >be gradually shifting towards news.
> Why can't bionet itself make this switch by being unavailable to e-mail
> subscribers? Anybody that has no access to news, can read posts through
> the gopher and the web sites and they can post using e-mail. Alternatively,
> as suggested, people that want to use bionet, may *have to* ask their sysops
> to install news software, which IMHO is OK since the service is *free*.
> This would require less time, effort and $ on the bionet side (no RC, no
> preregisration, considerably fewer connections). On the user side, instead
> of the hussle of preregistation he/she would have to face the hussle of
> talking to their sysops.
One problem is that many sites, such as this one, have severely
constipated newsfeeds. Depending on the attitude of the system, news may
take up to a week to reach Usenet users. It is very difficult to take
part in discussions when the post you are responding to is a week old,
and the thread has moved on or ceased to be of interest. I am sure I am
not the only bionet reader who faces this problem. In the case of
bionet-jobs, this can make the difference between making or missing an
Asking sysops to get more groups in is easy. Asking them to expand the
entire newsfeed is rather more difficult, and is likely to take a long
time to take effect. Consequently, people like myself are very grateful
that the E-mail subscription option exists, even though I would much
prefer to read this through Usenet.
Thought for the day:
If you see a light at the end of the tunnel, it is probably a train.
More information about the Bioforum