> 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
 
This also depends upon the particular list, IMHO.  One of the lists I run
is small and specialized.  We have not advertised it widely because we
want to keep it the way it is.  (It's for members of the American Dialect
Society.)  I feel that it's important to keep that list on topic --
which has so far been no problem.  The other list I run digresses widely
and wildly from its official topic.  Because the majority of the list
participants like it that way, I feel that I have no reason to try to
get it "back on track."  I see my role as listowner as mechanical.  I
deal with bounced mail, requests from subscribers, etc.  As long as the
majority of the subscribers are happy with our rambling list, I don't
plan to try to change it.  Those who don't like its style and its high
traffic unsubscribe quickly.  Those who stay with it seem to love it.
We're one of the few lists around with our own list t-shirts and with
a list party planned for July 5 in New England.  Why try to change a
list that many people are quite happy with?  If it ain't broke, don't
fix  it.
   --Natalie ([log in to unmask])