On Apr 12, 8:38*am, Dean Hoffman "
wrote:
On 4/11/13 2:11 PM, MiniM wrote: Wouldn't this be a better group if it was moderated? *Has anyone ever
considered that?

* We live in a world of almost instantaneous communications. * Why
should an inquiry wait until a moderator deigns to post it and wait
still longer while the moderator decides if responses are on topic?
The U.S. put men on the moon with less computing capacity than a
teenager carries in his pocket.

Moderation does not have to work in that manner. I am not advocating
moderation of any usenet group...simply pointing out the error of the
assumption you seem to have made.

Moderation can be an "after-the-fact" process.

I am one of several moderators of an on-line help forum for a specific
software application. All posts appear in the forum as soon as they
are posted. It is my responsibility to log in every now and then and
review the posts. I then have a number of options, including:

1 - Edit individual posts, including filling in a field that explains
why it was edited, e.g. deleting plain text email addresses or spam
links
2 - Delete individual posts
3 - Delete entire threads
4 - Escalate the issue to the site administrators and let them decide
what action to take, including deleting the member's account.

My point here is simply to show that moderation does not have to mean
a delay in posts appearing in the group. The moderation involves the
decision as to whether or not the posts (or thread) *stays* in the
group.

If I go on vacation or if my PC is down or if I just don't give a crap
on a given day everything that is sent to the forum shows up in the
forum. Since all moderators can moderate any forum on the site, I will
often let them (or the site administrator) know that I won't be
available for a few days. If they choose to keep an eye on "my" forum,
that's fine. If not, I can look it over when I get back.