FW: Shall we moderate bionet.microbiology? Please read.

Michael Sherrell grizzly at SLIP.NET
Tue Jan 26 11:49:08 EST 1999


I second the sentiment!

Mike Sherrell

----------
From: 	Nat Value[SMTP:natvalue at aol.com]
Sent: 	Monday, January 25, 1999 6:43 PM
To: 	microbio at net.bio.net
Subject: 	Re: Shall we moderate bionet.microbiology? Please read.

>moderation works in that all posts to bionet.microbiology will have to
>be screened manually for content by the moderators before they appear
>on the web. While not fool-proof, this will lead to a reduction of
>unrelated or unsuitable messages, such as spam. A few newsgroups have
>moderation status. The advantages are that one has to deal with less
>unrelated posts, the disadvantages are that moderation will cause a
>delay in the message appearing on the net.

Though I understand the need some newsgroups have for moderation, I truly do
not believe this is one of them.  Yes, I've seen some spam here.  But, overall,
there is just not enough traffic in this newsgroup to warrant all the work it
would take, I believe.  When you've got, say, 500 posts a day, and 450 of them
are spam, definately - moderate.  But the most I've seen here are no less than
say 40 posts a day, maybe 5 of which are spam.  

Just my two cents.

~Sue







More information about the Microbio mailing list