Paul Kitts <kitts at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov> wrote:
I agree with you that it would be most helpful for people if they
tried to get the newsgroup via "news" instead of email.
> BIOSCI does offer the option of making the newgroup moderated (The details
> are off the BIOSCI home page somewhere). Although a moderator could
> eliminate all the spam, I see several disadvantages to moderating the
> newsgroup:
>> 1. Postings are delayed until the moderator has had time to review them.
> (How fast can you expect the moderator to review postings? What happens
> when the moderator is on vacation?)
If the moderator is on vacation, he should ask for somebody to replace
him during that time. With regard to the traffic, it is probably not
too difficult and time-consuming to monitor bionet.molbio.proteins.fluorescent
and filter out the spam manually. I don't think that people around here
rely on short turnaround times (i.e. hours) but might be wrong.
> 2. If the newsgroup is moderated there will always be a suspicion that some
> postings might be being censored.
This is always an argument against moderation. A counterargument is that
somebody who feels censored could still complain, for example, in
bionet.general. Also, there are usually some regulars in a newsgroup
who may have gained enough trust in the net community so that they
are unlikely to be accused of censoring incoming postings.
I personally would like to see as many bionet groups as possible switch
from unmoderated to moderated status. Unfortunately, the resonance among
bionet users is usually quite small.
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: phak004 at rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP4 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
