Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 13 Feb 1992 09:50:48 EST |
In-Reply-To: |
Message of Thu, 13 Feb 1992 08:35:46 ECT from <MRAISH@BINGVMB> |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Feb 1992 08:35:46 ECT Martin Raish said:
>Moderate the list. That is the solution. Sure, it takes
>time, but you have a better list, one that includes or
>excludes whatever you want. I don't subscribe to very
>many non-moderated lists (in fact, I think this is the
>only one!) because they are almost always poorer -- less
>focused, more cluttered with junk, etc. -- than those
>that are moderated.
Moderation is sometimes a good way of managing an unruly list which has has
lots of postings not dealing with the topic at hand, but it is not a good idea
in most cases. If a list's traffic frequently diverts from the subject of the
list, it is up to the owner of that list to get back on track. Sometimes,
listowners are lax in that area and end up with a poorly run list. One reason
why list owners do not monitor their lists enough and keep reign on them is
due to a lack of sufficient time. If time is so short than I fail to see how
list moderation would help the situation since it too takes a lot of time.
List moderation is a last ditch effort to gain control of a list and to bring
it back in line with its topic. I personally find moderated lists distasteful
because when I post to such lists, I do not want someone else censoring my
comments or denying me the opportunity to see comments posted by others. I
find most moderated lists very restricting and rarely are they useful from me.
There are several exceptions, but they are not the norm. I would rather have
the opportunity of deciding for myself what to read rather than letting some
stranger make those descisions for me.
Stan Horwitz |*| STAN @ VM.TEMPLE.EDU
IBM Electronic Mail |*| My opinions are my own and do not
Applications Consultant |*| necessarily reflect those of my
Temple University |*| employers or anyone else.
|
|
|