OT: comp.cad.solidworks Charter changes

In any case, I'm not interested in being the moderator of any newsgroup.

I nominate Cliff for the task.

Reply to
Black Dragon
Loading thread data ...

Cross posting itself isn't a bad thing when used *properly*. As long as the topic being cross posted is on topic in the groups it is being cross posted to, it is considered a Good Thing.

This particular thread although marked as off topic is in fact not off topic in CCS or news.groups. Discussion which will affect the group itself is not considered off topic and I cross posted this thread to news.groups which is where discussion about this proposed change should and will take place once an official RFD for the proposed change is submitted to the B8MB.

The regulars of news.groups who will be offering excellent advice have been involved in the Big 8 hierarchy management process for a long time. It'd be very wise to heed what they have to say.

Reply to
Black Dragon

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:54:13 -0400, Cliff aided th' terraists with the following claims :

Luckily, due to adequate funding fought for by democrats in the legislature, the school has a drivers ed program :)

Reply to
§ñühwØ£f

We have a couple of guys sniffing around and beginning to post here to this thread brought by cross posting to alt.usenet.kooks.* One of these people alone has up to 10,000 posts in one month!!!.

Just like alt.machines.cnc these people were lead here by he-who-should-not-be-named.*

This would be where he-who-should-not-be-named gets his justification for trashing alt.machines.cnc. Didn't like a couple of peers talking politics he didn't agree with so to get back at them he cross posted to political extremist and Kook groups and still does leading them to post in alt.machines.cnc trashing it requiring regulars to use readers with good filters.

Tom

  • Please note X-Posting, what is the justification other than to bring the kooks here, next step political extremists if he follows his normal M.O.
[ From: Cliff Newsgroups: comp.cad.solidworks,alt.machines.cnc,att.cad,alt.usenet.kooks Subject: Re: Current company excepted of course.... Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:43:33 -0400 ] [ Newsgroups: comp.cad.solidworks, alt.machines.cnc, alt.usenet.kooks From: Cliff Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:05:47 -0400 Subject: Re: OT: comp.cad.solidworks Charter changes ] [ Newsgroups: comp.cad.solidworks, alt.machines.cnc, alt.usenet.kooks From: Cliff Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:52:06 -0400 Local: Sat, Sep 6 2008 11:52 am Subject: Re: OT: comp.cad.solidworks Charter changes ]

Tom

Reply to
brewertr

OIC. Thanks.

B/

Reply to
Brian Mailman

I propose we call these proposals for self-exile groups.

Reply to
Adam H. Kerman

Black Dragon,

You are absolutely right. I use Google groups and I use it because

a. I don't want to pay for a feed b. It archives everything back to the deja news days c. It is ubiquitous d. It is well connected. e. The new server that comes from my ISP (ATT DSL) drops posts after a few weeks.

Newbies and others use Goggle because they searched on Google for SW help. Many use Google from work because they aren't in a position to get IT to install a fancy news reader or connect to a private new feed.

Most people don't like to wear waders when walking down the street because the sewers are backed up.

T> snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Reply to
TOP

And the new group option is not on the table unless it is comp.cad.solidworks.unmoderated. There have been enough of those and it has fractured the SW forum into many fora which results in people having to spend time on several different fora or blogs to stay well informed. The comp.cad.solidworks.unmoderated group might be the solution for those that want their soap box while keeping this NG and its long history intact.

T> Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Reply to
TOP

First to cross post in this thread;

[ Newsgroups: comp.cad.solidworks, alt.machines.cnc, att.cad, alt.usenet.kooks From: Cliff Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:27:24 -0400 Local: Tues, Sep 2 2008 5:27 am Subject: Re: Current company excepted of course.... ]

First to cross post in this thread;

[ Newsgroups: comp.cad.solidworks, alt.machines.cnc, att.cad, alt.usenet.kooks From: Cliff Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:56:38 -0400 Local: Tues, Sep 2 2008 5:56 am Subject: Re: Management... or anyone else for that matter ]

First to cross post this thread;

[ Newsgroups: alt.machines.cnc, comp.cad.solidworks, alt.cad, alt.usenet.kooks From: Cliff Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:09:51 -0400 Local: Mon, Sep 1 2008 10:09 am Subject: Re: No CAD Progress In Ten Years ]

First to cross post this thread;

[ Newsgroups: comp.cad.solidworks, alt.machines.cnc, att.cad, alt.usenet.kooks From: Cliff Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:16:42 -0400 Local: Tues, Sep 2 2008 5:16 am Subject: Re: external reference frustration ]

AS OP;

[ Newsgroups: alt.machines.cnc, comp.cad.solidworks, rec.crafts.metalworking, alt.aol.tricks, alt.usenet.kooks From: Cliff Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:36:19 -0500 8Local: Sun, Jan 27 2008 3:36 am Subject: Re: OT - Political : Illegals may be registering to vote ]
Reply to
brewertr

"TOP" a écrit dans le message de news: snipped-for-privacy@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Maybe I'm victim of a strong spam filter: jean-marc(dot)brun - guess what here - tgcp(dot)fr

Reply to
Jean Marc

Agree

Deb

Reply to
Deb Dowding

Starting an alternate newsgroup is not a good idea in this case. comp.cad.solidworks has a history back to 1997 on it's primary topic, SolidWorks. Starting an alternate group would sever that history which is primarily accessed via Google (which absorbed the DejaNews archive of yore). Starting an unmoderated group like comp.cad.solidworks.unmoderated and then moderating the existing group makes more sense in terms of continuity of the discussion.

Google is the only newsreader many users have available because the SolidWorks software is primarily used in businesses during business hours which typically don't allow special software like newsreaders or connections to news servers through their firewall. On the other hand Google is usable in these circumstances. And Google doesn't have kill files.

From the discussi> >

Reply to
Paul B. Kellner

JB started his own blawg. Mebbe he can start his own NG?

Reply to
That70sTick

yeah, it could be comp.cad.banquerisanidiot

Reply to
madcadman

In message , Black Dragon writes

I'm sure others have told/will tell you that moderating an existing group is possibly a sub-optimal approach, particularly as the intention is to cut down on 'noise'.

The reason for this sub-optionality is that some (many?) of the servers that carry this group will not make the switch from moderated to un-moderated. Thus the 'noise makers' will have plenty of opportunities to continue.

If you really want a moderated group then creating a new group (e.g. comp.cad.solidworks.moderated) would be a better approach. It would tend to ensure the group is setup as moderated. Of course, there's no guarantee that any server admin will honor the moderated bit, so you still risk having some servers take the group but as unmoderated.

Before the folks here jump on my case for advocating moderation, be under no uncertain allusions: moderation is not something to be done lightly. For it to be successful, you will need a moderation platform (the software to actually do the moderation), and you will need moderators to do the work. Depending on the geographic spread of posters, you may need a geographically spread set of moderators. And even then, you slow down the immediacy of the group.

If it's just a bit of noise, then kill filters are probably a better bet. If you really need more AND you a) have the stomach for going through the process in news.groups and b) the determination and dedication to make moderation work well, then there's no reason why you shouldn't go for it. You are certain to get some significant levels of nose from various posters which may well descend into noise. You'll see cross-posts into totally irrelevant groups (which typically brings additional noise and abuse).

You will also need to have a number of people ready, willing and able to do the work once the group is created to both ensure good propagation, and that moderation is quick and painless to users. You may also face a backlash over what constitutes acceptable posts ("the F*****g moderators nuked my post - waaaaah", etc).

I hope this makes some sense.

Thomas

Reply to
Thomas Lee

That argument could be used in favour of moderation in place for any existing group. It's not an inherently bad argument, but there are at least two strong objections:

  1. There are many successful precedents for moderated groups created as alternatives to existing moderated groups. I can't think of a single example of a *.unmoderated group being created in such circumstances. You're foreseeing problems that haven't arisen in similar cases.
  2. Changes to the status of existing groups are unlikely to propagate to all servers. We don't even know that Google Groups will change the status, and some servers certainly won't.

If Usenet discussion of SolidWorks is appropriate and useful during working hours, employers can perhaps be persuaded to allow it.

Besides, is there really so much "noise"? I see some spillage of what seems to be a long-running, small-scale flame war in this thread, but Google suggests that most threads and posts are on-topic.

That may be enough to justify a formal RFD.

Reply to
Peter J Ross

The group is already unmoderated. That will not change. Make a new group if you want a clubhouse.

Reply to
Gary L. Burnore

Hmmm, I've just been reading CCSW. I see a very large number of posts in this thread consisting simply of the word "Agree". I also see a suspicion being expressed that these people aren't Usenet posters at all, but are following voting instructions they've read on a blog.

Among people who evidently use the newsgroup, opinion seems to be divided. A majority seem to be in favour of moderation in place, but there's a significant minority who are opposed. The existence of this minority wouldn't mean much if a new moderated group were being proposed, but it's likely to be enough to scupper the chances of moderation in place.

What I don't see in CCSW is much of the "noise" that's being complained about. There's *some* noise, but there's always some noise on Usenet. Robo-moderation certainly won't eliminate all of it.

Anyway, that's probably about all I have to say about this proposal unless a formal RFD appears.

Reply to
Peter J Ross

We are a group of engineers and we think of solutions to problems that haven't been tried before. Technically there is no problem on the face of it. Practically there may be issues as you mention below. Logically it maintains the link between history before and after moderation. I don't think the community wants to lose that history. If as I suspect a comp.cad.sw.moderated causes the traffic on the unmoderated group to drop (at least meaningful traffic) then there is a chance down the road that the group could be dissolved with the loss of the history or not carried on some servers.

I looked at the c++ moderated and unmoderated groups and it would seem there that the move simply created two related but disconnected lines of discussion. That doesn't seem to make much sense if a newsgroup is to be a place to network with others of similar interests.

I understand. It's just the nature of the beast. And if trolls and spammers want to take the time to find those injection points we might just take the time to ask those server admins to fix it. Google is another matter and the fact is that I will try to contact them and get their input on this. I'll report back later with an answer.

Having worked in the industry I can pretty much assure you that in most cases this won't happen. The last two places I worked where I ran the network the company didn't even have access to a newsserver. In other places dealing with IT on something like this would be more trouble than it is worth. Most engineers and designers are extremely busy. Making it easy for the average person with little or no computer savvy is important. With the growth of the software user base worldwide there is a constant stream of new users. They are welcome on the NG and until they actually derive benefit from using the NG they won't be much inclined to fight a battle with IT or management in this era of paranoid company network security.

There are a few comments in this thread that speak otherwise. There are many that I have spoken to personally that simply don't show up on the NG because of the trolls. Off topic posting is even occurring on this thread.

There are a couple of posters that have hijacked many discussions either through cross posting or repetitive harping on a single subject. Do a Google search on Synchronous Technology, Think3, Alibre, and several others I can't remember right now.

So there are some factors that Google probably won't pick up:

Thread hijacking. It has happened to me and many others.

Many top notch contributors have either left or provided limited input because of the actions of a very few. Ed Eaton Matt Lombard Devon Sowell Phil Sluder Dale Dunn Per O Hoel to name a few.

Other heavily moderated fora have been started drawing resource people away from ccsw. The move to those fora IMHO was precisely because of the problems we are discussing here. The vast majority of those in the group want the change (which of course would be subject to a formal vote.

We are moving in that direction. I intend to start a couple more threads in the next few days regarding the charter changes and moderation details. Those threads will be cross posted to news.groups. I had not intended this thread to be on news.groups till we had a consensus going amongst ourselves. BD, bless his heart, jumped the gun on me. As you well know there are technical details regarding such a change that need to be put in place before a change can be made. They will be made known in good time. Moderation is a lot of work and there is an international group of people willing to step up to the plate.

Reply to
TOP

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.