[15964] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 3376 Volume: 9
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu Jun 15 18:11:08 2000
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Message-Id: <961107039-v9-i3376@ruby.oce.orst.edu>
Content-Type: text
Perl-Users Digest Thu, 15 Jun 2000 Volume: 9 Number: 3376
Today's topics:
Crazy enough that it might just work... <henry@penninkilampi.net>
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... <care227@attglobal.net>
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... (Jerome O'Neil)
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... <rlogsdon@io.com>
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... <henry@penninkilampi.net>
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... <care227@attglobal.net>
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... <henry@penninkilampi.net>
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... <care227@attglobal.net>
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... (Tad McClellan)
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... <henry@penninkilampi.net>
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... <care227@attglobal.net>
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... <henry@penninkilampi.net>
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... (Abigail)
Re: Crazy enough that it might just work... <care227@attglobal.net>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 16 Sep 99) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:15:55 +0930
From: Henry <henry@penninkilampi.net>
Subject: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <henry-8BB029.04155516062000@news.metropolis.net.au>
[ This message is rather long - you have been warned! ]
Greetings!
I've been doing some thinking (dangerous, yes, I know) and I've come up
with an idea that's crazy enough that it might just work. It has to do
with the neverending newbie/FAQ issue that I still think is worth
pursuing. In light of recent comments, and under the affect of a vast
amount of caffeine, I have come up with the following - a mixture of
observation, speculation, psychology, philosophy and, well, stuff.
Here goes...
Programming groups like comp.lang.perl.misc (clpm) attract, and it
should be no surprise, programmers.
Programmers have social skill levels which (generally) rate below the
norm. They are introverted. They are shy.
When they subscribe to a group like clpm, most of them tend to just lurk
and monitor what's going on - for fear of asking a blatantly stupid
question and making a total fool of themselves. We affectionately refer
to these people as 'lurkers'.
I wouldn't be surprised if two-thirds of all the people who subscribe to
clpm _never_ actually post. They just dwell in the quiet corners of the
Net, absorbing information, watching...
The remaining third consists of programmers with better social skills
(or, at least, higher levels of self-confidence - due probably to higher
levels of expertise with the language). They are not afraid to ask
questions, or make the occasional fool of themselves. These are the
stereotypical 'newbies'.
Some of these programmers end up with enough self-confidence that they
begin answering questions. Acknowledgement and respect is earned at a
rate proportional to the technical correctness of these answers, and the
aplomb with which they are delivered. I shall hereafter refer to such
individuals as 'gurus'.
As is the nature of such systems, the newbies outnumber the gurus. The
average guru thus answers questions from multiple newbies.
The real world pours a constant stream of newbies into clpm. This
results in annoying situations where a guru, having answered a question
on a specific topic just hours earlier, finds _another_ question, from a
different newbie, on exactly the same topic. While article propogation
delays can be blamed for some of these incidents, that ratio is in the
minority. The main source of the problem is the sub-class of newbie
that shall hereafter be referred to as 'parasites'.
"parasite" n. one who lives on others without making any useful and
fitting return.
Parasites are impatient, inconsiderate, selfish, and young. Their posts
are knee-jerk reactions. They've been working on their pet project, and
as soon as they hit an obstacle, they fire off a post to clpm, then wait
impatiently for a response.
FAQs don't shield gurus from parasites, because parasites can't be
bothered reading FAQs. Parasites can't be conditioned into reading FAQs
either, because as soon as they've got their answer, they disappear back
to their pet project.
Unlike lurkers, they do not monitor the group. They do not care about
its culture, or its traditions. Parasites see clpm as a resource to be
exploited, and gurus as obligated educators _who's_job_it_is_ to solve
their problems for them.
Friction results. Sometimes flames do too.
Gurus quickly learn how to detect parasites. They devise coping
strategies such as "$ perldoc perldoc" and "This is not a Perl
question." Such strategies allow them to quickly dismiss individuals
who obviously haven't bothered to do any research, and move onto the
more legitimate and/or interesting questions.
Nonetheless, sometimes things become overwhelming. The September
floods. Selective guru availability. The impositions of real life.
Sometimes things just conspire against a guru to the point where they
can take no more, throw their hands up in despair, and cry "No more!"
They quit. They leave. They never come back.
Their loss is a heavy blow to the community. Years of accumulated
wisdom are ripped from the collective mind. Programming, and more
importantly, _progress_ is furthered by standing upon the shoulders of
those that have gone before, and reaching towards a higher goal.
The toll extracted by the constant stream of parasites into clpm has
been high. We have lost much - we will lose much more.
If we are to allow the next generation of programmers to reach towards a
higher goal, we need to give them a solid foundation - strong shoulders
- to stand upon. We need to retain the gurus. We need to protect them.
We need to shield them from the parasites, and buy them the time they
need to pass on their wisdom to others. It must not be lost.
Parasites are the enemy.
In article <slrn8kgi9g.570.tadmc@magna.metronet.com>,
tadmc@metronet.com (Tad McClellan) wrote:
>> Or are people happy with things the way they currently are?
>
> The only people who are happy with it the way it is are the
> gimme-gimmes who got what they wanted.
>
> And we don't need to consider them, because they are not
> here anymore, having gotten what they want. :-) :-)
...even if encased in smileys, this passage strikes at the very heart of
the matter, and is what transformed my entire line of thought on this
issue. It is an absolute gem.
If you accept two things: a) that parasites cause the bulk of the damage
in clpm, and b) that they contribute _nothing_, then doesn't it make
sense that anything we do to limit parasitic infection of this group
would be a _good_ thing?
In attempting to devise a "proof against parasite" I toyed with a number
of different ideas before settling on one which, due to its elegant
simplicity, might just work.
>>> We just DELAY their posts <<<
Parasites are impatient, and their posts, as I mentioned before, are
knee-jerk reactions. They see a post to clpm as the quickest and
easiest way for them to get their problem solved - without having to put
in the effort themselves. Fire off a message, go to sleep, wake up,
check clpm for the answer, implement it.
We can use their impatience _against_them_ by placing all messages from
new posters into (say, for example) an eight-day holding pattern.
Eight days would be an _infuriatingly_ long amount of time to wait for
an answer to a problem. When a programmer gets "into the groove" the
last thing they want to do is put their project on the back-burner for
over a week! Screw that!
Faced with an eight-day postal delay, or 30 minutes searching the web or
digging through the FAQs, I'd bet _real_money_ on which route the vast
majority of parasites will take!
It's as simple as that. We just delay their posts.
:)
The implementation details are mundane.
We could, for example, reject the first post attempt _outright_ - with
an automated response telling them that there will be an 8-day delay,
and that if they really want their post to go in, they'll need to
resubmit it. That means the gurus would never even see the posts from
the (majority of) parasites that give up straight away.
If we let $delay be the number of days to delay the _first_ message,
then the delay algorithm could delay subsequent postings by $delay/$n
days. This gives us multiple levels of protection against the parasites.
We could even bump up $delay just before September, in time for the
annual flood!
Heck, we could dynamically alter $delay based on the number of new
postings in any given week - the greater the number of posters, the
longer the delay.
>> A neural-net deflection mechanism for parasite control! <<
I think I'll stop before I get too carried away. ;^)
The obvious criticism of such an approach would be that "It's going to
negatively impact on _all_ newbies, and unduly penalise the legitimate
posters."
Remember, though, that two-thirds (or more) of the people that subscribe
to clpm (and benefit from it) are _lurkers_ and never post anyway.
They'd never be affected - period. Of the third that's left (who aren't
parasites), the chances are that if they are _considerate_ individuals
(the type we _want_) then they would have been lurking around for a
while anyway. They would have seen the regular advisory post, they
would have read the FAQ, they would know the procedure. They're in it
for the long haul, and won't be put off by the 'cover charge'.
Well, that's it. Sorry about the length. I wanted to be thorough.
Let the shredding begin!
Henry.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:17:17 -0400
From: Drew Simonis <care227@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <39492BBD.7AECA758@attglobal.net>
Henry wrote:
>
> It's as simple as that. We just delay their posts.
>
> :)
>
Two words: Prior restraint. The very core of censorship. Your
entire methodology is exclusionary, thus foiling the ability of
"parasites" to post. You are using the delay as a tool to silence.
> The implementation details are mundane.
Oh no they aren't!
> We could, for example, reject the first post attempt _outright_ - with
> an automated response telling them that there will be an 8-day delay,
> and that if they really want their post to go in, they'll need to
> resubmit it. That means the gurus would never even see the posts from
> the (majority of) parasites that give up straight away.
I'm sorry. I don't consider myself a USENET newbie. I've been
reading news since 1990, when I was in High School. There is a
difference between a news newbie and a programming newbie. I know
news well enough to know when to lurk, and when to speak. When I
have a question, I ask it. You (nor anyone else) have no idea what
research I've done, how long I've been working the problem or
how serious I am about solving it. Assuming these bits is
outrageous. If you want to filter content, use the existing
mechanisms toward that end. Try to make this group moderated, and
get ready to rumble.
> Heck, we could dynamically alter $delay based on the number of new
> postings in any given week - the greater the number of posters, the
> longer the delay.
This logic is flawed. The more people asking for help, the longer
we turn a deaf ear!
> I think I'll stop before I get too carried away. ;^)
I think its too late for that.
>
> Remember, though, that two-thirds (or more) of the people that subscribe
> to clpm (and benefit from it) are _lurkers_ and never post anyway.
You have 0 proof as to the veracity of that statment. But then
again, don't they say that 80% of all statistics are made up on the
spot? =)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:29:30 GMT
From: jerome@activeindexing.com (Jerome O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <u8a25.68$lY4.4663@news.uswest.net>
Drew Simonis <care227@attglobal.net> elucidates:
> Henry wrote:
>> Remember, though, that two-thirds (or more) of the people that subscribe
>> to clpm (and benefit from it) are _lurkers_ and never post anyway.
>
> You have 0 proof as to the veracity of that statment. But then
> again, don't they say that 80% of all statistics are made up on the
> spot? =)
And 95% of everything is crap.
Proof in the pudding!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:41:02 -0500
From: Reuben Logsdon <rlogsdon@io.com>
To: Henry <henry@penninkilampi.net>
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10006151420430.2158-100000@fnord.io.com>
> If we are to allow the next generation of programmers to reach towards a
> higher goal, we need to give them a solid foundation - strong shoulders
> - to stand upon. We need to retain the gurus. We need to protect them.
> We need to shield them from the parasites, and buy them the time they
> need to pass on their wisdom to others. It must not be lost.
>
> Parasites are the enemy.
Interesting idea, Henry. I beg to differ, from the perspective of a
person who has just made an immediate-request-for-help after not
participating in clpm for about a year... a "parasite" by your def.
Asking Perl questions seems like a perfectly acceptable activity here.
Even by those who haven't contributed any other posts, and haven't
suffered through the archives of other messages.
I asked a question about flock. I first read the perl.com docs, but I
didn't search every previous post for discussions of flock because there
were 2000+ of them, and my newsreader doesn't have search capability, and
the probability of finding something was low.
Let's say a newbie arrives and asks "um how do i update a file?". The
newbie isn't familiar with perl.com docs and maybe doesn't know enough
about Perl to leverage snippets from previous posts. Below a certain
level of competency, a conversational human helper is just better than
docs, because the newbie doesn't know how to formulate intelligent
questions and also can be overwhelmed by the amount of doc'ed knowledge.
Chances are, a lurker who is growing in Perl knowledge somewhere above
this newbie's level might email an nice answer. Private email,
because the lurker is shy. This happens a lot, and it's a positive thing.
If a guru happens upon this message with no public replies and gets angry
and leaves clpm, well, I think a better response by the guru would have
been to ignore the post.
I was a guru myself on a different forum with a different topic a while
back. There's kinda this life cycle that a person goes through - newbie,
lurker, contributor, guru, then retirement. Eventually the cost/benefit
of time versus learning/peer-respect weighs in the cost direction and the
gurus move on, which I feel should be viewed as a healthy natural progression
and not something to fight by punishing another class of newsgroup
participants.
Regards,
Reuben
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:36:27 +0930
From: Henry <henry@penninkilampi.net>
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <henry-83424D.05362716062000@news.metropolis.net.au>
In article <39492BBD.7AECA758@attglobal.net>, Drew Simonis
<care227@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Two words: Prior restraint. The very core of censorship. Your
> entire methodology is exclusionary, thus foiling the ability of
> "parasites" to post. You are using the delay as a tool to silence.
There are no legal grounds here.
Some newsgroups _bar_ you from posting at all, until you jump through a
hoop. Others point blank censor content (they call it moderation). Some
don't let you post binaries. Any newsgroup in _any_ language is
exclusionary by its very nature, because of the language it is written
in.
A multiple-day delay on the first post won't even rate a mention, given
the 'exclusionary' practices that already proliferate.
>> Remember, though, that two-thirds (or more) of the people that
>> subscribe to clpm (and benefit from it) are _lurkers_ and never
>> post anyway.
>
> You have 0 proof as to the veracity of that statment. But then
> again, don't they say that 80% of all statistics are made up on the
> spot? =)
Several years ago (1996ish) I read (in an Internet trends report) that
four-fifths of UseNetters post less than two articles a year (and posted
their first messages in the current, not previous, year). That number
seemed to (me to) be a bit on the extreme side, so to allow for a bit of
error, and maybe a bit of drift over the last few years, I toned it down
to a conservative two-thirds.
Henry.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:13:39 -0400
From: Drew Simonis <care227@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <394938F3.19915D9A@attglobal.net>
Henry wrote:
>
> In article <39492BBD.7AECA758@attglobal.net>, Drew Simonis
> <care227@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Two words: Prior restraint. The very core of censorship. Your
> > entire methodology is exclusionary, thus foiling the ability of
> > "parasites" to post. You are using the delay as a tool to silence.
>
> There are no legal grounds here.
>
> Some newsgroups _bar_ you from posting at all, until you jump through a
> hoop. Others point blank censor content (they call it moderation). Some
> don't let you post binaries. Any newsgroup in _any_ language is
> exclusionary by its very nature, because of the language it is written
> in.
Right. As I mentioned in my response, if you want to restrict
content, use the mechanisms that are already in place. I even
listed moderation as an example.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:54:29 +0930
From: Henry <henry@penninkilampi.net>
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <henry-089C11.05542916062000@news.metropolis.net.au>
In article <394938F3.19915D9A@attglobal.net>, Drew Simonis
<care227@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Some newsgroups _bar_ you from posting at all, until you jump through
>> a hoop. Others point blank censor content (they call it moderation).
>> Some don't let you post binaries. Any newsgroup in _any_ language is
>> exclusionary by its very nature, because of the language it is written
>> in.
>
> Right. As I mentioned in my response, if you want to restrict
> content, use the mechanisms that are already in place. I even
> listed moderation as an example.
None of the mechanisms already in place solve the problem!
"My tyre is flat."
"Here, use this golf club!"
I don't see that clpm would want to censor (moderate) posts, and the
whole binaries issue is a non-issue. The
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi self-approval process is way too easy.
There is latitude and precedence there to come up with a new approach to
solving this problem. I see no reason why we should adopt any existing
strategy, given that they are all proven failures.
Henry.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:34:24 -0400
From: Drew Simonis <care227@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <39493DD0.B4E6CF25@attglobal.net>
Henry wrote:
>
> None of the mechanisms already in place solve the problem!
>
Im not sure we've clearly identified and defined a problem. People
stop posting for lots of reasons. People get bored. Saying that
"guru's stop posting because of parasites" is not a clear
identification of a problem, because it is not based on empirical
evidence. It is based on assumption.
> "My tyre is flat."
> "Here, use this golf club!"
>
> I don't see that clpm would want to censor (moderate) posts, and the
> whole binaries issue is a non-issue. The
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi self-approval process is way too easy.
Yes, but is it any easier than simply waiting a week? And aren't you
actually wanting to censor? From the root of this thread:
Henry> Faced with an eight-day postal delay, or 30 minutes searching
Henry> the web or digging through the FAQs, I'd bet _real_money_ on
Henry> which route the vast majority of parasites will take!
So you don't say it in so many words, but you do imply it. You
want them to go away, to not post. To me, that smacks of censorship.
> There is latitude and precedence there to come up with a new approach to
> solving this problem. I see no reason why we should adopt any existing
> strategy, given that they are all proven failures.
I disagree with that. Moderated newsgroups do just fine. They do
not tend to have as lively a discussion as an open group, but they
aren't "failures".
I think you are assuming that during that 8 day wait that the parasite
will go out and learn. I favor the assumption that getting a self
moderation reply containing pointers to all sorts of goodies is both
more helpfull to the poster and more beneficial to the long term
success of the USENET.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:06:01 -0400
From: tadmc@metronet.com (Tad McClellan)
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <slrn8kidp9.7fo.tadmc@magna.metronet.com>
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:15:55 +0930, Henry <henry@penninkilampi.net> wrote:
>[ This message is rather long - you have been warned! ]
But it has some Very Good descriptions of The Way It Is.
I found it worth reading.
>I have come up with the following - a mixture of
>observation, speculation, psychology, philosophy and, well, stuff.
^^^^^
I think most people have a pretty good idea of what that
euphemism stands for :-)
>Programming groups like comp.lang.perl.misc (clpm) attract, and it
>should be no surprise, programmers.
Yes. But Perl, in particular, has something that none of the
other programming languages have, that make the FAQ rate
here higher than normal.
comp.lang.perl.misc also attracts NON-programmers (folks who
are not, and expressly do not _want_ to be programmers).
We get them because Perl is easy enough to use that you can
get things to work without really knowing what you are doing.
The bar is set much lower here than for, say, Java or C.
With those languages, these don't-want-to-be-programmers
(the _true_ parasites) who just want a spiffy web page,
can't get the darn thing to work, so they give up.
So you never see them posting.
Perl's blessing is that it is so darn easy to use.
Perl's curse is that it is so darn easy to use.
Reconciling those would be an interesting Philosophy question...
>Programmers have social skill levels which (generally) rate below the
>norm. They are introverted. They are shy.
But they are "used to" reading the docs for the software that they use.
Unlike the non-programmers who are used to being given a fish
rather than being taught how to fish.
I do not think that "programmers" ("real" ones, and those who
are merely willing to learn what is necesary to become one)
are at all a problem in clp.misc.
>I wouldn't be surprised if two-thirds of all the people who subscribe to
>clpm _never_ actually post.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was 90-95% even.
>"parasite" n. one who lives on others without making any useful and
>fitting return.
^^^^^^^
I do not feel that people are _obligated_ to make a "pay back".
They can just post their question, get their answer, and never
come back.
That's "OK" (though it would be nice if they did help out in return).
There is now one more question and (perhaps several) answer
where people can find them.
What I _do_ think is objectionable is just posting their question
when it has already been answered (FAQs), as that does not add
anything to the "global knowledge".
While "parasites", as you have defined them, are annoying,
they only "move up" to the truly enraging level when their
question's answer is already on their hard disk.
>Unlike lurkers, they do not monitor the group. They do not care about
>its culture, or its traditions. Parasites see clpm as a resource to be
>exploited, and gurus as obligated educators _who's_job_it_is_ to solve
>their problems for them.
There we have it.
A rather well-done statement of the problem.
>In article <slrn8kgi9g.570.tadmc@magna.metronet.com>,
>tadmc@metronet.com (Tad McClellan) wrote:
>
>>> Or are people happy with things the way they currently are?
>>
>> The only people who are happy with it the way it is are the
>> gimme-gimmes who got what they wanted.
>>
>> And we don't need to consider them, because they are not
>> here anymore, having gotten what they want. :-) :-)
>
>
>...even if encased in smileys,
The smileys are because of the nonsense logic therein.
There _are_ gimme-gimmes here, they just aren't the
same ones as yesterday.
Considering the gimme-gimmes is pretty much what is being
discussed in this thread ;-)
>this passage strikes at the very heart of
>the matter, and is what transformed my entire line of thought on this
>issue. It is an absolute gem.
Aw shucks.
>If you accept two things: a) that parasites cause the bulk of the damage
>in clpm,
Your "parasites" are different from my "gimme-gimmes" (what I
described as non-programmers above).
If you substitute my definition for yours, then a) seems solid.
>and b) that they contribute _nothing_,
True for "gimme-gimmes".
Not true for questions not answered (or not easily found)
in the standard docs.
They have value in that they point out how the docs could
be improved :-)
>then doesn't it make
>sense that anything we do to limit parasitic infection of this group
>would be a _good_ thing?
Yes, but most of the "cures" end up being worse than the "disease" :-(
The best solution would be to indoctrinate new Usenauts on
how to conduct themselves in this foreign society.
A _required_ "kindergarten" (to beat on my oft reposted
Larry Wall quote).
But that is NOT going to happen, which is the big problem.
>>>> We just DELAY their posts <<<
The "cure" ends up being worse than the "disease", I fear.
I doubt that I would stick around with a propogation measured in days...
But that is moot, as what you propose (and your other proposal too)
is essentially a moderation scheme, and clp.misc is unmoderated.
(I actually agree with John Stanley here, a historical first! )
>Faced with an eight-day postal delay, or 30 minutes searching the web or
>digging through the FAQs, I'd bet _real_money_ on which route the vast
>majority of parasites will take!
I agree that it may very well work.
But it cannot be applied here.
We _could_ make a new newsgroup with manufactured latency
and move all of the Frequent Answerers over there...
But the probability of success there is too low to justify
trying, I think.
>>> A neural-net deflection mechanism for parasite control! <<
Tom Phoenix cannot be duplicated in software :-)
--
Tad McClellan SGML Consulting
tadmc@metronet.com Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:51:32 +0930
From: Henry <henry@penninkilampi.net>
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <henry-0AD70E.06513216062000@news.metropolis.net.au>
In article <39493DD0.B4E6CF25@attglobal.net>, Drew Simonis
<care227@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Im not sure we've clearly identified and defined a problem. People
> stop posting for lots of reasons. People get bored. Saying that
> "guru's stop posting because of parasites" is not a clear
> identification of a problem, because it is not based on empirical
> evidence. It is based on assumption.
True, but I think a very sound assumption. Larry left because of the
noise. Tom left because of the noise. Should we conduct a pop quiz of
the resident gurus and ask them what their #1 peeve is? How much
evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, do you need?
>> I don't see that clpm would want to censor (moderate) posts, and the
>> whole binaries issue is a non-issue. The
>> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi self-approval process is way too
>> easy.
>
> Yes, but is it any easier than simply waiting a week?
Considering you can put "passme" on a line by itself at the top of your
very first message, and get it through, I'd say it's a _lot_ easier than
waiting a week.
> And aren't you actually wanting to censor?
> From the root of this thread:
>
> Henry> Faced with an eight-day postal delay, or 30 minutes searching
> Henry> the web or digging through the FAQs, I'd bet _real_money_ on
> Henry> which route the vast majority of parasites will take!
>
> So you don't say it in so many words, but you do imply it. You
> want them to go away, to not post. To me, that smacks of censorship.
Oh, look, if you really, really want to use the word, then go right
ahead! Yes, I want to censor this group. I want clpm to join the
71,000 other newsgroups (or however many we're up to now) that also
happen to be censored (in one way or the other). La la la, we're all
censored now. Happy?
Censorship is the NORM on UseNet - at least it's the norm if you apply
the dictionary definition of the word 'censor' to it. Any group with a
charter is censored, for crying out loud!
The majority of folks, however, consider UseNet to be _uncensored_,
because there are so many groups to choose from that they can generally
find one that matches their tastes , and let's them get away with
<whatever>.
Trying to soil an idea that seeks to make life better for helpful
people, by labelling it as 'censorship' is almost laughable when I'm
four clicks away from a newsgroup that has animals performing sexual
acts with humans.
Gimme a break.
>> There is latitude and precedence there to come up with a new approach
>> to solving this problem. I see no reason why we should adopt any
>> existing strategy, given that they are all proven failures.
>
> I disagree with that. Moderated newsgroups do just fine.
Hang on, so are you advocating censorship now? Moderation is a
crystal-clear form of censorship, y'know...
> They do not tend to have as lively a discussion as an open group,
> but they aren't "failures".
I was actually referring to all previous attempts at dealing with
parasites (the whole guru/FAQ/newbie thing). Sorry if that wasn't clear.
> I think you are assuming that during that 8 day wait that the
> parasite will go out and learn.
I am _hoping_ for that, yes. Of course, no-one (that I know of) has
tried it before, so there are no data points to refer to...
> I favor the assumption that getting a self
> moderation reply containing pointers to all sorts of goodies is both
> more helpfull to the poster and more beneficial to the long term
> success of the USENET.
Oh, that goes without saying. In fact, the first message they get back
(the rejection) should be absolutely oozing with useful tips and links.
Henry.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:19:58 -0400
From: Drew Simonis <care227@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <3949487E.647F6E8E@attglobal.net>
Tad McClellan wrote:
>
>
> >>> A neural-net deflection mechanism for parasite control! <<
>
> Tom Phoenix cannot be duplicated in software :-)
>
I'm still awaiting proof that Tom Phoenix isn't software.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:13:52 +0930
From: Henry <henry@penninkilampi.net>
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <henry-EEE996.07135216062000@news.metropolis.net.au>
In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10006151420430.2158-100000@fnord.io.com>,
Reuben Logsdon <rlogsdon@io.com> wrote:
>> Parasites are the enemy.
>
> Interesting idea, Henry. I beg to differ, from the perspective of a
> person who has just made an immediate-request-for-help after not
> participating in clpm for about a year... a "parasite" by your def.
Actually, since this is now your third post (a least) and you're
participating in a thread about the, err, health of this group (and not
merely sucking the life out of the gurus), it's pretty clear you're
_not_ a parasite, by my (the dictionary) definition.
Parasites are the ones who come, take, then leave. They don't
contribute. They don't give back. You have.
> Let's say a newbie arrives and asks "um how do i update a file?". The
> newbie isn't familiar with perl.com docs and maybe doesn't know enough
> about Perl to leverage snippets from previous posts. Below a certain
> level of competency, a conversational human helper is just better than
> docs, because the newbie doesn't know how to formulate intelligent
> questions and also can be overwhelmed by the amount of doc'ed knowledge.
While I'd agree that a human can, in almost all situations, provide a
more lucid response to a newbie than documentation (especially of the
likes around here), I'd like to point out that you're looking at it from
the _newbie's_ point of view.
It's fine for a newbie to think "I'm going to ask this question, just
once" but it is a _completely_ different thing from the guru's point of
view "What, another bloody newbie who can't tie up their own shoelaces?
That's the 50th this week!"
Now, I don't really want to be putting words into anyone's mouth, but do
you see the point? BETTER FOR WHOM?
> Chances are, a lurker who is growing in Perl knowledge somewhere above
> this newbie's level might email an nice answer. Private email,
> because the lurker is shy. This happens a lot, and it's a positive
> thing.
The silent (lurker) majority is, indeed, a wondrous thing. Almost
completely overlooked by the commentators.
> If a guru happens upon this message with no public replies and gets angry
> and leaves clpm, well, I think a better response by the guru would have
> been to ignore the post.
From what I've seen, they usually bail after a flamewar with a parasite.
Not due to an incomplete thread.
> I was a guru myself on a different forum with a different topic a while
> back. There's kinda this life cycle that a person goes through - newbie,
> lurker, contributor, guru, then retirement. Eventually the cost/benefit
> of time versus learning/peer-respect weighs in the cost direction and the
> gurus move on, which I feel should be viewed as a healthy natural
> progression and not something to fight by punishing another class of
> newsgroup participants.
My idea is not to "punish" a different group, it's to prevent that group
from _exploiting_ and _abusing_ the kindness of volunteers.
I refer, of course, to the parasites.
Colateral damage to the "innocent newbie" class should, of course, be
minimised as much as possible.
Henry.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jun 2000 17:45:58 EDT
From: abigail@delanet.com (Abigail)
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <slrn8kikmu.jil.abigail@alexandra.delanet.com>
Henry (henry@penninkilampi.net) wrote on MMCDLXXX September MCMXCIII in
<URL:news:henry-83424D.05362716062000@news.metropolis.net.au>:
.. In article <39492BBD.7AECA758@attglobal.net>, Drew Simonis
.. <care227@attglobal.net> wrote:
..
.. > Two words: Prior restraint. The very core of censorship. Your
.. > entire methodology is exclusionary, thus foiling the ability of
.. > "parasites" to post. You are using the delay as a tool to silence.
..
.. There are no legal grounds here.
..
.. Some newsgroups _bar_ you from posting at all, until you jump through a
.. hoop. Others point blank censor content (they call it moderation). Some
.. don't let you post binaries. Any newsgroup in _any_ language is
.. exclusionary by its very nature, because of the language it is written
.. in.
..
.. A multiple-day delay on the first post won't even rate a mention, given
.. the 'exclusionary' practices that already proliferate.
Huh?
Most newsgroups don't have any restrictions, except for the topic
and usenet wide guidelines. Moderated groups are the exception;
not the rule. And the Perl community already has a moderated group:
comp.lang.perl.moderated.
I admit that the behaviour of a lot in this group is a pain. But the
censorship (an 8 day delay on Usenet is almost the same as complete
censorship) you are proposing is far, far worse. It isn't even based
on content - just on email address!
Please join comp.lang.perl.moderated, or create your own group.
Abigail.
--
perl -wle\$_=\<\<EOT\;y/\\n/\ /\;print\; -eJust -eanother -ePerl -eHacker -eEOT
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:48:52 -0400
From: Drew Simonis <care227@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Crazy enough that it might just work...
Message-Id: <39494F44.110265EC@attglobal.net>
[Bringing a thread on ways to restrict posting over to
news.admin.censorship re: a discussion in comp.lang.perl.misc
about ways to maintain a base of posters while restricting the posting
of a certain class of folks refered to as parasites. The suggested
methodology was to enforce an 8 day waiting period on all new posters.
Extensive quoting to provide context. Cross post for awareness in
clpm]
Henry wrote:
>
> In article <39493DD0.B4E6CF25@attglobal.net>, Drew Simonis
> <care227@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Im not sure we've clearly identified and defined a problem. People
> > stop posting for lots of reasons. People get bored. Saying that
> > "guru's stop posting because of parasites" is not a clear
> > identification of a problem, because it is not based on empirical
> > evidence. It is based on assumption.
>
> True, but I think a very sound assumption. Larry left because of the
> noise. Tom left because of the noise. Should we conduct a pop quiz of
> the resident gurus and ask them what their #1 peeve is? How much
> evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, do you need?
IIRC the last post by Tom Christensen in this newsgroup was OT, a
solicitation of students for his classes.
>
> Considering you can put "passme" on a line by itself at the top of your
> very first message, and get it through, I'd say it's a _lot_ easier than
> waiting a week.
Ahh, but you don't know that till you've gotten the auto-response.
So... maybe people take the time to read FAQ's as listed in that
response. Maybe they don't. I don't know.
>
> > And aren't you actually wanting to censor?
> > From the root of this thread:
> > (...)
>
> Oh, look, if you really, really want to use the word, then go right
> ahead! Yes, I want to censor this group. I want clpm to join the
> 71,000 other newsgroups (or however many we're up to now) that also
> happen to be censored (in one way or the other). La la la, we're all
> censored now. Happy?
My happiness certainly isn't based on copious useage of the word
censor in USENET groups. And I think you've confused what I'm
trying to say. I am _not_ using the terms censor and restrict
interchangeably. Many groups restrict content. For example, don't
post bianry content to a group without binar* in the title.
Don't post jobs to a group without Jobs in the title. That is
content restriction. Moderation _is_ censorship, but it is also
based on content. A moderator evaluates the post, and kills it
if s/he thinks it is waranted. Censorship, in the vein I speak of,
(and I specifically mentioned in the first post I made) is being
based upon the type of person posting, not what they post. Hence
my reference to Prior Restraint, or censoring someone before you
even know what they are going to utter.
> Censorship is the NORM on UseNet - at least it's the norm if you apply
> the dictionary definition of the word 'censor' to it. Any group with a
> charter is censored, for crying out loud!
My dictionary lists censor as a verb, with the following
definition: To examine and expurgate. By that definition, only
moderated groups are censored, and I hardly consider them the norm.
As far as OTP, I can post off topic to many newsgroups. I'm posting
off topic as I type, as are you. Nothing is censoring us.
>
> The majority of folks, however, consider UseNet to be _uncensored_,
> because there are so many groups to choose from that they can generally
> find one that matches their tastes , and let's them get away with
> <whatever>.
Again, by the definition of censored, the majority of USENET _is_
uncensored.
>
> Trying to soil an idea that seeks to make life better for helpful
> people, by labelling it as 'censorship' is almost laughable when I'm
> four clicks away from a newsgroup that has animals performing sexual
> acts with humans.
>
> Gimme a break.
Apples and cars. Not at all related.
>
> >> There is latitude and precedence there to come up with a new approach
> >> to solving this problem. I see no reason why we should adopt any
> >> existing strategy, given that they are all proven failures.
> >
> > I disagree with that. Moderated newsgroups do just fine.
>
> Hang on, so are you advocating censorship now? Moderation is a
> crystal-clear form of censorship, y'know...
Yes, it is. And I advocated that in _my_first_response_!
To quote _again_:
:If you want to filter content, use the existing
:mechanisms toward that end. Try to make this
:group moderated, and get ready to rumble.
<snipped>
------------------------------
Date: 16 Sep 99 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 16 Sep 99)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
the single line:
subscribe perl-users
or:
unsubscribe perl-users
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
| NOTE: The mail to news gateway, and thus the ability to submit articles
| through this service to the newsgroup, has been removed. I do not have
| time to individually vet each article to make sure that someone isn't
| abusing the service, and I no longer have any desire to waste my time
| dealing with the campus admins when some fool complains to them about an
| article that has come through the gateway instead of complaining
| to the source.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V9 Issue 3376
**************************************
