To: psn@csf.colorado.edu From: david horne Subject: Re: Self-Moderation Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 06:07:19 -0700 This strikes me as a not very good idea. Those of us who subscribe to multiple lists probably all suffer from the "volume of mail" problem. It does get a little overwhelming when the software tells you that there are yet another hundred messages waiting to download. But the problem is not created by by any one list, but by the lists as a group. Two hundred messages in a thirty day month translates to six or seven messages a day, surely not an unmanageable number. If people are unhappy about seeing the same names all the time they can drop their "lurker" status and join in the discussion. People are always going to unsubscribe. My partner and myself have recently dumped several lists. The volume of information was not the problem. The quality and relevance of the information was the problem. PSN is our favorite list among the current crop, and we look forward to seeing its postings. We wouldn't look forward to seeing less. One of the more important virtues of the "net" as a whole and of discussion lists in particular is the free flow of information between people. Any attempt at limiting this flow is [in my opinion] to be discouraged. David H. At 06:18 PM 10/6/96 -0600, you wrote: >Dear PSNers, > >For over a year, we have been soliciting responses from persons who have >unsubbed (500+ in the last 12 mos) -- we send out a message asking former >subscribers "Why did you unsub?" Typical responses have been > 1. the volume of mail is too great > 2. too much mail from the same parties > >We try to moderate with these criteria in mind, but we would like more >help from frequent posters to self-moderate. To encourage the sharing of >the load of moderation, we are introducing software that limits the number >of posts per person. > >Since the inception of moderation in June of 1995, 4451 messages have >been submitted ALL of which have appeared on psn-cafe. We have accepted >for psn 52% or 2334 of those submissions leaving us with 2334/16 = 146 >messages per month. In sep96 and aug96, however, message traffic has been >200 and 221 and postings have been strongly skewed to the most frequent >posters. > >We would like to lower traffic volume and distribute postings among more >people until the two common complaints listed above subside, and we would >like help from frequent submitters in determining what they regard as >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >their most important contributions. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >We will continue to moderate, but at least some of the responsibility >for deciding which messages are posted will be shifted back to the >authors by using limit software. > >Here's how limit software works: Suppose that everyone, moderators >included, were limited to posting no more than 5 of the last hundred >messages. When someone posted 4 messages, the software reminds that >person that they are approaching their limit. When someone has posted >(had approved) 5 of the last 100 messages, the person is reminded that >they have reached their limit. If the person submits yet another >message, their submission is returned to the sender by the software. > >It is important for submitters to know how close they are to their limit so >that they can decide how to "spend their limit." At anytime, any psn >subscriber can send LIMITS@csf.colorado.edu the request > MYLIMIT PSN >and the limit software will tell them how close they are to their limit. > >Possible Problem: What if an interesting thread is developing and a >particular author is an important contributor to that thread? Might >that author hit his/her limit just when many of us would like to see a >continuation of the thread? To solve this potential problem, the >moderators propose to occasionally use discretionary action to suspend >that particular person's limit for awhile. Suspending individual >limits would need to be infrequent; otherwise, the purpose of limits >would be defeated. > >A modest beginning: We want to bring the limit software into play >gradually by starting, as of today, with a limit of 7 of the last 100 >messages. We will watch the results with a modest expectation that the >limit will be lowered in the future, especially as the list continues to >grow (it's now over 800). Any change would be announced, of course. If >limits became too tight, we would have to frequently suspend someone's >limit because we think their contributions to a particular thread were >too good to be missed. The ideal tightness of limits would be >determined by how often we were suspending limits. If we suspended >limits infrequently, it might inform us that the general limit was about >right. Since this is an experiment, we would like to move gradually as >the list as a whole evaluates the results. We welcome feedback about >whether you would like the limit higher or lower. > >We feel that this will help address the complaints of unsubsribers and >elicit the help of frequent posters to self-moderate. > >>From your Psn-Mods, > >Carl Dassback dassbach@mtu.edu >David Fasenfest fasenfest@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de >Martha Gimenez gimenez@csf.colorado.edu >Lauren Langman ylpsll0@cpua.it.luc.edu >Jack Hammond hjlgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu >Valerie Scatanburlo valeries@yorku.ca > > > > > > >