Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
Someone mentioned this the other day...
I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
"Tim Watts" wrote in message ... Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please where is the fun in that? ...... |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 21/06/2017 18:56, Tim Watts wrote:
Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please Nah, leave things as they are. |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
"Ash Burton" wrote in message news On 21/06/2017 18:56, Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please Nah, leave things as they are. yes best larf going ...tee hee |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
In message , Tim Watts
writes Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please Might as well make it a forum and take money for advertising? -- Tim Lamb |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 19:31:05 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please If you just decide on yes/no for individual posters, there's far less moderating work. Let the group vote rather than decide personally. I want 10 no votes for Rodney NT |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
Tim Watts wrote:
Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please No need for that. It will turn into uklm where everybody has watch what they say and be nicey-nicey. As for new blood, it's too late for that. More or less the same people post here all of the time - there is nothing wrong with that as this is quite an active group. Leave well alone. |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:56:25 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please I ran a major news server about 25 years ago, using INN on Solaris, when a lot of people were getting their newsfeeds over UUCP. Usenet has been dying for years, but it's proved remarkably resilient. Although I recently had to switch to eternal-september because my ISP's news server stopped handling some UK moderated groups correctly. One of the advantages of usenet is the distributed nature, which allows it to continue when individual servers die. If we set up a central server, how long will that last? |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 21/06/2017 18:56, Tim Watts wrote:
Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Getting group stats is not as easy as it once was. But I am guessing we could be running 10K+ posts a month again. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; or have our own leaching web portal ;-) Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please I seem to recall discussing something similar a decade ago probably - maybe not a full on moderated version of the group, but just a sanitised version that drops the obvious crap. Those who want the full unfiltered feed can can still access it from their existing usenet server, and will see posts the the new server back propagated. The nice thing about usenet is the speed of access - moving from post to post and thread to thread is near enough instant. The threading model is vastly better than most web portals. The downside obviously is the obscurity and the lack of capacity to post images etc. If we are going to add a web "something" to it, then it needs to bring something new to the party - not sure what though. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:56:25 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please It's a solution to a problem that does not exist. Not yet anyhow. 0/10. See me. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:56:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
Someone mentioned this the other day... Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Hmm, a bit like a killfile then where I can ignore individual posters or threads. But what I choose to ignore may not be the same as what others choose to ignore. Opinions please I can see where you are going with this - there is an increasing amount of noise on here but even the noisiest posters sometimes post something of interest (like seeking advice on UPVC doors as an example). I prefer to stick with a killfile and/or just skip the name calling and rabble rousing as I see fit. |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:52:02 +0100, John Rumm
wrote: On 21/06/2017 18:56, Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Getting group stats is not as easy as it once was. But I am guessing we could be running 10K+ posts a month again. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; or have our own leaching web portal ;-) Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please I seem to recall discussing something similar a decade ago probably - maybe not a full on moderated version of the group, but just a sanitised version that drops the obvious crap. Those who want the full unfiltered feed can can still access it from their existing usenet server, and will see posts the the new server back propagated. The nice thing about usenet is the speed of access - moving from post to post and thread to thread is near enough instant. The threading model is vastly better than most web portals. The downside obviously is the obscurity and the lack of capacity to post images etc. If we are going to add a web "something" to it, then it needs to bring something new to the party - not sure what though. You are being far too diplomatic John, things would have to be far worse (deliberate sabotage like u.r.a) for this to be a good idea. Also Google indexes and makes searchable the text of our posts almost instantly, I remember when it took weeks, and even gives the uninitiated users a means to contribute without knowing what Usenet is, and without seeing any adverts. (I never thought I would be singing the praises of GG). -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 21/06/2017 21:52, John Rumm wrote:
The nice thing about usenet is the speed of access - moving from post to post and thread to thread is near enough instant. The threading model is vastly better than most web portals. The downside obviously is the obscurity and the lack of capacity to post images etc. If we were running a server it could allow images to be posted. Most modern news readers can cope with images. If we are going to add a web "something" to it, then it needs to bring something new to the party - not sure what though. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
John Rumm wrote:
On 21/06/2017 18:56, Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Getting group stats is not as easy as it once was. But I am guessing we could be running 10K+ posts a month again. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; or have our own leaching web portal ;-) Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please I seem to recall discussing something similar a decade ago probably - maybe not a full on moderated version of the group, but just a sanitised version that drops the obvious crap. Those who want the full unfiltered feed can can still access it from their existing usenet server, and will see posts the the new server back propagated. The nice thing about usenet is the speed of access - moving from post to post and thread to thread is near enough instant. The threading model is vastly better than most web portals. The downside obviously is the obscurity and the lack of capacity to post images etc. If we are going to add a web "something" to it, then it needs to bring something new to the party - not sure what though. The trouble is most of them are worthless and humourless. |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please Do you know of any other moderated newsgroup still running? -- *Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 21/06/2017 22:15, Mark Allread wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:56:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Hmm, a bit like a killfile then where I can ignore individual posters or threads. But what I choose to ignore may not be the same as what others choose to ignore. Opinions please I can see where you are going with this - there is an increasing amount of noise on here but even the noisiest posters sometimes post something of interest (like seeking advice on UPVC doors as an example). I prefer to stick with a killfile and/or just skip the name calling and rabble rousing as I see fit. I think people might be focussing too much on the avoiding the crap stuff and less on the how to bring new talent into the group aspect. There is no getting away from the fact that usenet for all its virtues is less "visible" to later generations of 'net users. Some of the web front ends have been slightly less crap than others, however even there you have a problem that some people like to tar all users of such system with the same brush and lob insults as a first response to a genuine questioner just because some other users of the same portal reply to old posts without understanding what they are doing. Likewise new readers could equally well be put off before they start because of the political sniping or the religious loon so courageously preaching his extremist diatribe from behind anonymous re-mailers. We have a web based FAQ and wiki, and to be fair articles there do get 100K+ page views, but they rarely then lead onto new participants in the discussions beyond a few people who email me directly regarding content there. Something that could sit alongside the existing web site and enable discussion there could be good. It could act as a gateway to existing usenet users, bridging conversation here, while shielding the web version from the stuff that we are in the habit of kill filing here. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please Do you know of any other moderated newsgroup still running? Snow good you joining one, Dave. I doubt that your bigotry would be allowed. |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 00:57:15 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/06/2017 22:15, Mark Allread wrote: On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:56:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Hmm, a bit like a killfile then where I can ignore individual posters or threads. But what I choose to ignore may not be the same as what others choose to ignore. Opinions please I can see where you are going with this - there is an increasing amount of noise on here but even the noisiest posters sometimes post something of interest (like seeking advice on UPVC doors as an example). I prefer to stick with a killfile and/or just skip the name calling and rabble rousing as I see fit. I think people might be focussing too much on the avoiding the crap stuff and less on the how to bring new talent into the group aspect. There is no getting away from the fact that usenet for all its virtues is less "visible" to later generations of 'net users. Some of the web front ends have been slightly less crap than others, however even there you have a problem that some people like to tar all users of such system with the same brush and lob insults as a first response to a genuine questioner just because some other users of the same portal reply to old posts without understanding what they are doing. Likewise new readers could equally well be put off before they start because of the political sniping or the religious loon so courageously preaching his extremist diatribe from behind anonymous re-mailers. We have a web based FAQ and wiki, and to be fair articles there do get 100K+ page views, but they rarely then lead onto new participants in the discussions beyond a few people who email me directly regarding content there. Something that could sit alongside the existing web site and enable discussion there could be good. It could act as a gateway to existing usenet users, bridging conversation here, while shielding the web version from the stuff that we are in the habit of kill filing here. Sounds good. And it would be uk.d-i-y not uk.d-i-y.moderated, so much more web presence. Uk.d-i-y could use a sane visible web portal with rodney filter. NT |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:40:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please Do you know of any other moderated newsgroup still running? uk.radio amateur moderated uk.legal moderated The former was created because its unmoderated sister group was all but destroyed by infighting between a small number of posters, who yet still refuse to grow up. By and large there was little alternative to a moderated group, although I would prefer a much lighter touch to the moderation. I'm not really qualified to comment about ulm vs ul, the unmodulated group seems to work well enough, but it is often said that those with actual legal experience tend to post in the moderated group. There's a whole other culture behind these groups, with the moderation streams publicity visible on the web, and the back chatter on uk.net.news.moderation which of course is unmoderated. Life's too short for all that, I just want my post to appear when I press send. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
"Graham." wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:40:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please Do you know of any other moderated newsgroup still running? uk.radio amateur moderated uk.legal moderated The former was created because its unmoderated sister group was all but destroyed by infighting between a small number of posters, who yet still refuse to grow up. By and large there was little alternative to a moderated group, although I would prefer a much lighter touch to the moderation. I'm not really qualified to comment about ulm vs ul, the unmodulated group seems to work well enough, but it is often said that those with actual legal experience tend to post in the moderated group. There's a whole other culture behind these groups, with the moderation streams publicity visible on the web, and the back chatter on uk.net.news.moderation which of course is unmoderated. Life's too short for all that, I just want my post to appear when I press send. LOL, You'll be lucky. Press send how many times? |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
"Graham." wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:40:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please Do you know of any other moderated newsgroup still running? uk.radio amateur moderated uk.legal moderated The former was created because its unmoderated sister group was all but destroyed by infighting between a small number of posters, who yet still refuse to grow up. By and large there was little alternative to a moderated group, although I would prefer a much lighter touch to the moderation. I'm not really qualified to comment about ulm vs ul, the unmodulated group seems to work well enough, but it is often said that those with actual legal experience tend to post in the moderated group. There's a whole other culture behind these groups, with the moderation streams publicity visible on the web, and the back chatter on uk.net.news.moderation which of course is unmoderated. Life's too short for all that, I just want my post to appear when I press send. 2nd attempt............... LOL |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
"bm" wrote in message eb.com... "Graham." wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:40:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please Do you know of any other moderated newsgroup still running? uk.radio amateur moderated uk.legal moderated The former was created because its unmoderated sister group was all but destroyed by infighting between a small number of posters, who yet still refuse to grow up. By and large there was little alternative to a moderated group, although I would prefer a much lighter touch to the moderation. I'm not really qualified to comment about ulm vs ul, the unmodulated group seems to work well enough, but it is often said that those with actual legal experience tend to post in the moderated group. There's a whole other culture behind these groups, with the moderation streams publicity visible on the web, and the back chatter on uk.net.news.moderation which of course is unmoderated. Life's too short for all that, I just want my post to appear when I press send. 2nd attempt............... LOL Dave will have it sorted by the morrow. |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
En el artículo , Tim Watts
escribió: Opinions please I like the idea, but it fragments the DIY audience at a time when usenet is already contracting fast. You'd have to find people willing to moderate. It isn't hard to make uk.d-i-y usable with killfiling and filtering. Anything posted, and followed up to, by Wodney, Wilkinson, TNP and harry kills off 90% of the rubbish. -- (\_/) (='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick (")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News)
escribió: Do you know of any other moderated newsgroup still running? There's loads. uk.legal.moderated and uk.radio.amateur.moderated to name but two. Both active. -- (\_/) (='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick (")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message ... En el artículo , Dave Plowman (News) escribió: Do you know of any other moderated newsgroup still running? There's loads. uk.legal.moderated and uk.radio.amateur.moderated to name but two. Both active. this must be a new meaning of active hitherto unheard of ..... |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
Do you know of any other moderated newsgroup still running? uk.radio amateur moderated uk.legal moderated The former was created because its unmoderated sister group was all but destroyed by infighting between a small number of posters, who yet still refuse to grow up. yes brian reay mike tomlinson and stephen cole ruined a very good group .... |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 22/06/2017 00:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Do you know of any other moderated newsgroup still running? I subscribe to two web based groups that are moderated and both have been free of "crap" for the years. Both require money to maintain the servers and supply the required bandwidth. One requests user donations around ÂŁ150 month and also has sponsor with the proviso that no postings are allowed that provide links to direct commercial rivals of the sponsor. By default, one only allows a sign-up and posting from UK IPs (relaxed at the discretion of the moderator). The other only allows one sign-up per user, perhaps policed by checking IP. Both require a login and password to post. My experience with moderated Usenet groups in the past is not too positive. The moderator was often some self appointed jobsworth who has no authority in the real world but had ultimate power over the group. Usually these groups were the first to die. Does a moderator become "responsible" for what is published and therefore useful posts, say, suggesting that certain companies are dodgy or rip-off merchants would be moderated out of existence? -- mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 21/06/17 20:24, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Tim Watts writes Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please Might as well make it a forum and take money for advertising? Ugh! Forums are horrid. |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 21/06/17 20:57, Caecilius wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:56:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please I ran a major news server about 25 years ago, using INN on Solaris, when a lot of people were getting their newsfeeds over UUCP. Usenet has been dying for years, but it's proved remarkably resilient. Although I recently had to switch to eternal-september because my ISP's news server stopped handling some UK moderated groups correctly. One of the advantages of usenet is the distributed nature, which allows it to continue when individual servers die. If we set up a central server, how long will that last? As long as the uk-d-i-y wiki server I expect... |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 22/06/17 08:38, Tim Watts wrote:
On 21/06/17 20:24, Tim Lamb wrote: In message , Tim Watts writes Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please Might as well make it a forum and take money for advertising? Ugh! Forums are horrid. No, they are very very good actually. except they dont get to be quite so free speech -- Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are poor. Peter Thompson |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 08:38:54 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; One mans bacon is anothers taboo... Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Are the leech sites busy? Only stuff I notice from there are the responses to ancient posts. Some people have to be willing to moderate; Who? A bacon lover (or not)? Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Getting some new blood would be nice and the younger do seem to like web based "forums" but does anybody under 30 actually do any DIY more advanced than a flatpack bookcase? Might as well make it a forum and take money for advertising? Ugh! Forums are horrid. double plus +1 Most have no proper threading, they are slow ('cause of all the eye candy), searching is frequently fruitless even if you know what you are looking for 'cause you've seen it before and you have to go trapesing round each one just in case there is something new of interest. A mailing list would be far superiour to a web based forum. -- Cheers Dave. |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 22/06/17 09:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/06/17 08:38, Tim Watts wrote: Ugh! Forums are horrid. No, they are very very good actually. except they dont get to be quite so free speech They're horrible - because I have to go to a dozen different websites with a dozen logins to get a dozen groups. Almost none (except the Spectator) have anything like a killfill. Even with more than one NNTP server, I can have a converged view in one place, one client and one set of killfill etc rules. Now, if there was a forum aggregator with a choice of client front ends, that would be my main objection gone. |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
In message , Graham.
writes On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:56:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote: Someone mentioned this the other day... I've run nntp servers before, admittedly 15 years ago - but a simple single server "islanded" setup is not hard in itself. I am not proposing adding to the USENET hierarchy - I'm proposing a single server. The traffic and number of users is low enough for that to work. Pros: We could moderate and kill OT stuff and obnoxiousness whist whitelisting anyone who posts reasonable stuff; Could keep all the leeching web portals off, by force if necessary; Cons: I/we have to run a server; Some people have to be willing to moderate; Would we need our own properly done web portal to make it popular and capture new blood? Opinions please It's a solution to a problem that does not exist. Not yet anyhow. 0/10. See me. +1 My newsreader has choices on ignoring unwelcome posts/posters but, apart from serial offenders, I find it best to simply skip threads where obnoxious views are offered. Kipling's Stalky and Co has a bit about *baiting* and *rises* which I didn't understand when first read (teenager) but see it happening all the time in here. Basically, if you don't respond, the baiter loses. He will likely come back with something more outrageous and eventually appear very silly. Off Topic posts can be interesting so long as they don't destroy the informative nature and original purpose of the group. My daughters introduced me to Usenet when they wanted to read about Eddie Izzard! Of the half dozen groups still on my list, UK.d-i-y is the only one still active. -- Tim Lamb |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
alan_m posted
My experience with moderated Usenet groups in the past is not too positive. The moderator was often some self appointed jobsworth who has no authority in the real world but had ultimate power over the group. Exactly. ULM is like this. Law is a rather technical subject. You can spend ages composing a detailed reply to someone on a specialist topic, and then it is deleted on grounds of 'not adding sufficient new content' by a moderator who isn't very well up with the subject. Pish. -- Jack |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 22/06/17 09:59, Handsome Jack wrote:
alan_m posted My experience with moderated Usenet groups in the past is not too positive. The moderator was often some self appointed jobsworth who has no authority in the real world but had ultimate power over the group. Exactly. ULM is like this. Law is a rather technical subject. You can spend ages composing a detailed reply to someone on a specialist topic, and then it is deleted on grounds of 'not adding sufficient new content' by a moderator who isn't very well up with the subject. Pish. I found exactly the same when I joined a moderated NG. It was run as a private shop by a few old farts and if you didn't agree with their religion your posts simply vanished. -- €śSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€ť Dennis Miller |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:03:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: snip I found exactly the same when I joined a moderated NG. It was run as a private shop by a few old farts and if you didn't agree with their religion your posts simply vanished. Yup and some of you do the same thing with killfiles eh. ;-) The world is populated by a range of 'cold and pricklies' to 'warm and fuzzies' and whilst we need the lot, it's typically the former who create most of the tension, inter member issues or wasted bandwidth. But then I guess you also get fanatics (religious, football, OS, political) in all walks of life so why not here (other than 'here' isn't supposed to be about any of those things)? Cheers, T i m |
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 22/06/2017 00:57, John Rumm wrote:
I think people might be focussing too much on the avoiding the crap stuff and less on the how to bring new talent into the group aspect. There is no getting away from the fact that usenet for all its virtues is less "visible" to later generations of 'net users. Bullseye. Some of the web front ends have been slightly less crap than others, however even there you have a problem that some people like to tar all users of such system with the same brush and lob insults as a first response to a genuine questioner just because some other users of the same portal reply to old posts without understanding what they are doing. Likewise new readers could equally well be put off before they start because of the political sniping or the religious loon so courageously preaching his extremist diatribe from behind anonymous re-mailers. We have a web based FAQ and wiki, and to be fair articles there do get 100K+ page views, but they rarely then lead onto new participants in the discussions beyond a few people who email me directly regarding content there. Something that could sit alongside the existing web site and enable discussion there could be good. It could act as a gateway to existing usenet users, bridging conversation here, while shielding the web version from the stuff that we are in the habit of kill filing here. That sounds good - especially if "bridging" means posts to the website would automatically appear in uk.d-i-y and vice versa replies. -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message ... En el artículo , Tim Watts escribió: Opinions please I like the idea, but it fragments the DIY audience at a time when usenet is already contracting fast. You'd have to find people willing to moderate. It isn't hard to make uk.d-i-y usable with killfiling and filtering. Anything posted, and followed up to, by Wodney, Wilkinson, TNP and harry kills off 90% of the rubbish. That's a tad harsh, Mike Wodney? LOL. |
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
uk-d-i-y.moderated? Views...
On 22/06/2017 09:31, Dave Liquorice wrote:
Getting some new blood would be nice and the younger do seem to like web based "forums" but does anybody under 30 actually do any DIY more advanced than a flatpack bookcase? My poll[1] shows not a single one of those who do is aware of Usenet or GG, or would dream of using them on their phones. [1] non-random, non-stratified, sample size = 3 DIY-ers -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
3rd RFD: rec.woodworking.all-ages (was: rec.woodworking.moderated) | Woodturning | |||
RFD: rec.woodworking.moderated moderated | Woodworking | |||
Moderated DIY group | UK diy | |||
A moderated group! | UK diy | |||
is there some other moderated.. quality.. ww forum (Taunton's?) | Woodworking |