I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating
a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
must also be above some value.
I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
true for some groups hierarchy ?
I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creatingContent_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
must also be above some value. But looking at
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/
and https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments
I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
true for some groups hierarchy ?
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:15:30 -0000 (UTC), Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creatingContent_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
must also be above some value. But looking at
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/
and https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments
I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
true for some groups hierarchy ?
There were lots of problems with the public voting system, namely trolls. People would vote against a group for the sake of causing problems. Since Usenet is relatively anonymous, there is no way to fairly and accurately count individual votes. If someone voted 20 times under 20 different
email addresses (it's not that hard to do), nobody would know.
Last year we created comp.infosystems.gemini. It's a nice group with a
fair amount of activity and no spam because the spambots don't know about
it
and Google Groups doesn't add newly created Usenet groups any longer.
If you're interested in creating a group, post here or email the board.
and Google Groups doesn't add newly created Usenet groups any longer.
That's interesting , how do you know it ?
If you're interested in creating a group, post here or email the board.
Out of curiosity , do inactive groups still get expunged ? Personally I
see no reason why they should. They cause no harm by being around and you never know when a previously inactive group may become active again.
. . .
One of the remits of the board is to remove unused groups. We are in the >process of removing comp.software.shareware.announce and >comp.software.shareware.authors. You can see discussion on >news.groups.proposals. These are being deleted because of zero usage and no >new moderator.
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:15:30 -0000 (UTC), Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creatingContent_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
must also be above some value. But looking at
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/
and https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments
I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
true for some groups hierarchy ?
There were lots of problems with the public voting system, namely trolls.
People would vote against a group for the sake of causing problems.
Since Usenet is relatively anonymous, there is no way to fairly and accurately count individual votes. If someone voted 20 times under 20 different email addresses (it's not that hard to do), nobody would
know.
See David Lawrence and Henry Spencer's Managing Usenet (https://openlibrary.org/books/OL8667193M/Managing_Usenet).
Today, things are fairly simple.
Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
and Google Groups doesn't add newly created Usenet groups any longer.
That's interesting , how do you know it ?
If you subscribe to control.newgroup and control.rmgroup, you'll see all of the requests to create and remove groups. There have been a handful of new groups in the free.* and alt.* hierarchies in the past couple of years. None of them are available in groups.google.com, so that tells me that they
aren't picking up new groups.
I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating
a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes
in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
must also be above some value.
But looking at https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
and
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments
I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
true for some groups hierarchy ?
Have they stopped adding groups from other managed hierarchies
On 2022-03-04, Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:15:30 -0000 (UTC), Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating >>> a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votesContent_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M
must also be above some value. But looking at
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/
and https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments
I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was
true for some groups hierarchy ?
There were lots of problems with the public voting system, namely trolls.
I have no memory of "trolls" being a problem in the latter days of
public voting.
People would vote against a group for the sake of causing problems.
Again, not in the latter days.
Since Usenet is relatively anonymous, there is no way to fairly and
accurately count individual votes. If someone voted 20 times under 20
different email addresses (it's not that hard to do), nobody would
know.
Again, it didn't happen.
Or to be precise: whenever it was attempted, it was detected.
Both are active groups but are not available on google groups.
Both also seem to be free of spam.
Peter J Ross wrote:
On 2022-03-04, Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 02:15:30 -0000 (UTC), Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
I have a vague recollection from years ago that the process for creating >>>>a new group involved a public voting process and if there were N votes >>>>in favour and M votes against then N must be above some value and N-M >>>>must also be above some value. But looking at >>>>https://www.big-8.org/wiki/ >>>Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
and https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments
I saw nothing like that. Is my recollection totally wrong or is or was >>>>true for some groups hierarchy ?
There were lots of problems with the public voting system, namely trolls.
I have no memory of "trolls" being a problem in the latter days of
public voting.
The Usenet that existed when there was voting was completely different
from today's Usenet. There were a few issues with votes, but overall
the voting system accomplished what it was set out to do - gauge
interest in a proposed newsgroup. . . .
The other basic difference was the population of Usenet. The idea of >creating a new newsgroup was to make it easier for a group of people to >discuss a given topic. There weren't hidden agendas; it was a >straightforward question of whether a new group would improve the
discussion or not. Voting was a straightforward way to answer that
question.
People would vote against a group for the sake of causing problems.
Again, not in the latter days.
Since Usenet is relatively anonymous, there is no way to fairly and >>>accurately count individual votes. If someone voted 20 times under 20 >>>different email addresses (it's not that hard to do), nobody would
know.
Again, it didn't happen.
There was no motivation to do it, and it WAS that hard to come up with
20 working email addresses in those days.
Or to be precise: whenever it was attempted, it was detected.
The problem was not multiple votes by one person, but encouraging people
to vote who had no intention of using the newsgroup. It was against the >rules to do things like post the voting information to a mailing list
and encourage members of the mailing list to vote; the idea was to gauge
the interest in the Usenet community from people who were actually
interested in using the group. Back then, believe it or not, most
people followed the rules. In a few cases, violations were observed and >votes were discarded.
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
Voting wasn't a gauge of interest at all.
Are you interested in a topic? Well, discuss the topic on Usenet.
The other basic difference was the population of Usenet. The idea of
creating a new newsgroup was to make it easier for a group of people to
discuss a given topic. There weren't hidden agendas; it was a
straightforward question of whether a new group would improve the
discussion or not. Voting was a straightforward way to answer that
question.
It really wasn't. Plenty of proposed groups were motivated by "Yes,
Topic A is on topic, but I don't want to see it. Let's force discussion
I don't like to move to a separate group 'cuz I don't wanna use my kill file."
The problem was not multiple votes by one person, but encouraging people
to vote who had no intention of using the newsgroup. It was against the
rules to do things like post the voting information to a mailing list
and encourage members of the mailing list to vote; the idea was to gauge
the interest in the Usenet community from people who were actually
interested in using the group. Back then, believe it or not, most
people followed the rules. In a few cases, violations were observed and
votes were discarded.
So, you're denying that Stromboli scandal happened?
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
Voting wasn't a gauge of interest at all.
Are you interested in a topic? Well, discuss the topic on Usenet.
And I see that you have a better idea.
I'm sorry, but really? Voting was not an gauge of interest?
Given the
need to make a decision on creation of new newsgroups, how would you
propose to make anything approaching an objective decision? Oh, wait.
I've got it. Let's form a small committee.
The other basic difference was the population of Usenet. The idea of >>>creating a new newsgroup was to make it easier for a group of people to >>>discuss a given topic. There weren't hidden agendas; it was a >>>straightforward question of whether a new group would improve the >>>discussion or not. Voting was a straightforward way to answer that >>>question.
It really wasn't. Plenty of proposed groups were motivated by "Yes,
Topic A is on topic, but I don't want to see it. Let's force discussion
I don't like to move to a separate group 'cuz I don't wanna use my kill >>file."
Which is a perfectly reasonable motivation to create a new newsgroup, if >there is enough discussion of Topic A. . . .
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
The problem was not multiple votes by one person, but encouraging people
to vote who had no intention of using the newsgroup. It was against the >rules to do things like post the voting information to a mailing list
and encourage members of the mailing list to vote; the idea was to gauge >the interest in the Usenet community from people who were actually >interested in using the group. Back then, believe it or not, most
people followed the rules. In a few cases, violations were observed and >votes were discarded.
So, you're denying that Stromboli scandal happened?
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 17:41:51 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
The problem was not multiple votes by one person, but encouraging people >>>to vote who had no intention of using the newsgroup. It was against the >>>rules to do things like post the voting information to a mailing list
and encourage members of the mailing list to vote; the idea was to gauge >>>the interest in the Usenet community from people who were actually >>>interested in using the group. Back then, believe it or not, most
people followed the rules. In a few cases, violations were observed and >>>votes were discarded.
So, you're denying that Stromboli scandal happened?
What's the Stromboli scandal in relation to usenet ? Googling did not >enlighten me.
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
Voting wasn't a gauge of interest at all.
Are you interested in a topic? Well, discuss the topic on Usenet.
And I see that you have a better idea.
I'm sorry, but really? Voting was not an gauge of interest?
No. I never agreed with it. But it was around long before I read Big 8 newsgroups. I came in at the tail end of tale.
Given the
need to make a decision on creation of new newsgroups, how would you
propose to make anything approaching an objective decision? Oh, wait.
I've got it. Let's form a small committee.
barf icon
Haven't we had the conversation two dozen times already? On Usenet, what someone says he'll do is meaningless. All that's important is what he actually does. If he's discussing the topic already, then great, his
opinion on whether to proceed with the proposed newsgroup or keep the discussion in the existing newsgroup is important. If he's never
discussed the topic on Usenet, his opinion is worthless.
If there's concensus among those discussing the topic to move to a new
group and there's enough discussion for s sustainable group, then
there's some benefit to the new group. Maybe. But too many groups have
been proposed over the years attempting to force other people to change
their posting habits. That doesn't work.
Voting was always useless.
The other basic difference was the population of Usenet. The idea of
creating a new newsgroup was to make it easier for a group of people to >>>> discuss a given topic. There weren't hidden agendas; it was a
straightforward question of whether a new group would improve the
discussion or not. Voting was a straightforward way to answer that
question.
It really wasn't. Plenty of proposed groups were motivated by "Yes,
Topic A is on topic, but I don't want to see it. Let's force discussion
I don't like to move to a separate group 'cuz I don't wanna use my kill
file."
Which is a perfectly reasonable motivation to create a new newsgroup, if
there is enough discussion of Topic A. . . .
It's hostile crap and an extreme form of topic moderation that should
never be appeased.
I'm top posting because nothing you said is worth commenting on.
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 17:41:51 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
The problem was not multiple votes by one person, but encouraging people >>>to vote who had no intention of using the newsgroup. It was against the >>>rules to do things like post the voting information to a mailing list >>>and encourage members of the mailing list to vote; the idea was to gauge >>>the interest in the Usenet community from people who were actually >>>interested in using the group. Back then, believe it or not, most >>>people followed the rules. In a few cases, violations were observed and >>>votes were discarded.
So, you're denying that Stromboli scandal happened?
What's the Stromboli scandal in relation to usenet ? Googling did not >enlighten me.
Not Usenet generally. Voting to recommend the proposed newgroup to tale and other Big 8 hierarchy administratos, which is what we have been discussing.
There were a series of attacks and fraudulent votes in the final years
of voting. The attacks were directed at the votetakers and just one
remained at the end.
Typically, votes would fail due to the extremely high supermajority
required and threshold of votes required.
One vote appeared to pass but so many users named "Stromboli" voted in
favor of it that fraud was declared. It was thought that these were
email addresses of multiple people and that the proponent's supporter
had gotten all his relatives to vote for it from a very large family.
We were never sure if it was a supporter who did it or just someone
gaming the system to wreak havoc.
Encouraging people to vote in favor of a proposed newsgroup who had no interest in discussing the topic -- and many of these people were
probably not Usenet users -- was vote fraud.
And I've asked repeatedly that you stop holding configging discussion in
the moderated news.groups.proposals and move it back to unmoderated news.groups.
Voting to recommend the proposed newgroup to tale and other Big 8
hierarchy administratos, which is what we have been discussing.
"tale" ? Is this some usenet nickname ?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 293 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 234:33:46 |
Calls: | 6,624 |
Files: | 12,172 |
Messages: | 5,319,696 |