Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Articles
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Newsgroups
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Newsgroups
Hardware
DIY PC
Easy way to know if a UseNet group is moderated?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="VanguardLH, post: 14240656"] I see about 130+ moderated newsgroups from the Albasani NNTP server. They don't carry all groups so someone, say, using Giganews might count more. There have never been a lot of moderated newsgroups. Requires someone to volunteer their time to authenticate all the submissions. Does that sound like a job you would like to do and for free and at all times throughout the day? Also, moderated groups are the antithesis of Usenet which was born and designed to be a worldwide mesh network of servers that had no control over the content they carried (think of Tor today). Seems many of the moderated newsgroups were originally mailing lists where moderation was employed by whomever was administering the mailing list. They decided to hook into Usenet but still wanted their moderated mailing list. Moderated newsgroups have an e-mail backside and why there's the delay. Nowadays the mailing list seems integrated with an NNTP server they're using but e-mail notification to the admin of the group is still there. Besides having to waiting until a real person decides what to do about your post, remember that e-mail is NOT a guaranteed delivery service. This isn't the only example of hooking into Usenet to accomodate a different paradigm for communication. Many web-based forums run NNTP-to-HTTP proxies so they can leech, er, borrow the content of Usenet to pretend they have a larger community or provide a web-based UI to boobs that can't figure out a couple of config parameters in setting up an NNTP client. <rant> That's why it is so comical when posters use the X-No-Archive header or 1st-line body header trying to hide their posts (and punch holes in threads) after some period of time over which they have no control. The web-based archives don't give a gnat's fart about this header. Google will expire an article marked with this header after 6 days (so such a poster effective punches holes in threads to which they reply). Clients, web based forums leeching from Usenet, and archives other than Google Groups (e.g., Howard Knight) don't honor that header. The poster trying to hide his post after a week (and obviously who considers their post as insignificant so they should have never posted) is a boob because their article is still archived somewhere. They think their article will expire in a week. They have no control over the expiration since it is a request to the server or to whomever retrieves a copy of their article. Okay, I comply with their "X-No-Archive: Yes" request and my expiration is zero; i.e., I immediately expire their posts. They think they're moderating the lifetime of the post. They're clueless. </rant> Back to moderated forums, think of a convention center announcing "free speech forums" but after entering you find about 5% of the cubicles aren't free speech at all. Yes, we all know the argument that freedom does not preclude responsibility but Usenet is not a political organization. It is an anarchy so moderation is out of place. If users want a regulated or moderated venue to communication with other users then they should go to web-based forums (and suffer the flattened threads versus the hierarchical ones available in Usenet to determine who said what to whom). Perhaps before the Usenet reorganization, the mod.* groups were like having private forums: only those invited could play. It kept out everyone else. Not just the bad posters but all posters except for those enlisted in the elite group. Apparently they wanted to rely on the worldwide mesh network of NNTP server with its redundancy rather than any one of them having to setup their own private NNTP server and rely on login credentials to keep out the riff raff. Anyone can operate their own NNTP server, like news.grc.com or news.mozilla.org, and not peer it to Usenet to keep the community small and focused. They can even require login credentials to operate a private non-peered server versus a public non-peered server. But those require running your own NNTP server. A moderated newsgroup requests someone else to have their server do the notification. Filtering is how you modify the Usenet so you see what you want to see. Alas, many Usenetizens are too lazy or ignorant to define their own filters. Users wanting a comfy cozy environment that has someone else do the filtering should go to web-based forums where moderation is the [expected] norm. Those with thin-skinned egos shouldn't be in Usenet. There have been so few moderated newsgroups in the past that I doubt the percentage has changed much over the years. Many web-based forums popped up to provide a more cozy and protected environment for those too weak to endure the anarchy of Usenet. You won't be happy with the limited number of moderated newsgroups unless you only participate in very few topics and there happen to be moderated groups that cover those. Then there's the delay to get your submission accepted and then when it finally appears. Usenet is not designed to provide immediate response, like a chat room, so the added delay may tax your patience. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Newsgroups
Hardware
DIY PC
Easy way to know if a UseNet group is moderated?
Top