Who maintains ruby-talk?
in [Ruby]
|
Prev: how can i add tones to my pc's sound card
Next: Undefined method `ire' with rubygems on mswin32
From: Michael W Ryder on 15 Apr 2010 00:26 Seebs wrote: > On 2010-04-14, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Sorry, I do my email online, so used the wrong terminology. I just mean that >> gmail will take 50 posts about ruids, and group them all together in a >> single thread, so it doesn't spam my inbox. It also filters the threads out >> and sets them in their own separate area, so they never touch my inbox at >> all. If your _client_ ;) didn't do this, I can see how the list could spam >> your inbox. > > You don't seem to understand. > > It doesn't matter whether you *see* them. If they're sent, they're taking > up bandwidth for every single reader, and that is a significant cost. > >> Is email bandwidth even an issue these days? > > Yes. It's a HUGE issue. Largely because about 96% of it is spam. > >> I stream all of my music, all >> day. Pretty sure one minute of streaming music exceeds an entire month's >> worth of emails (assuming no attachments). > > Nope. More importantly, remember that the emails go to *every reader*. > > -s Well you could do as I do and use a newsreader to read the messages. It only downloads the headers and places them in threads which makes it very fast to scan and determine what to read.
From: Seebs on 15 Apr 2010 00:23 On 2010-04-15, Michael W Ryder <data(a)quantumcollections.com> wrote: > Well you could do as I do and use a newsreader to read the messages. It > only downloads the headers and places them in threads which makes it > very fast to scan and determine what to read. Actually, that's *precisely* what I do. That said, I still don't really have any objections to some of the other forms of this getting some moderation, given the apparent volume of spam. (I'm lucky, my news provider filters most of the spam.) -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Robert Klemme on 15 Apr 2010 01:36 On 14.04.2010 22:10, H- 16 wrote: > You know, just my two cents but I've been on several forum sites with > moderators. > > All the things you're worried about, just plain doesn't exsist if you > have the right people as moderators. People who really care about the > site. I prefer a situation where everybody in the community cares and feels responsible. > And it seems to me that you are thinking of only one mod. Why not have > more? Any mod who misuses his power can be brough back into line by the > others. Frankly, I do like the connotation of this: "misuse of power", "bring back in line" etc. I don't think we need a government in here what decides about what may be said and what not. > And if someone who is kicked shouldn't have been, one can always go back > and lift the ban. > > There's no real harm in having a mod and there's lots to gain... just > look at thunk! My stance is this: I do feel zero pain with regard to spam. I checked my GMail account and there are 6 emails in the last 30 days that I have or the spam filter has marked spam. I can easily ignore threads and the bandwidth is only relevant for Google (btw, SMTP should make just one copy of every mail to all GMail accounts subscribed travel the net). Also, I do not consider recent traffic as spam: apparently there was enough interest in the community to discuss this. So even with moderation enabled these messages would have made it into everybody's inboxes. On the contrary, moderation not only slows things down but it also has a different effect: the community delegates maintaining a healthy biotope to moderators. I prefer the current solution where everybody is responsible for balancing things out. I think it has worked out remarkably well in the last years and I do not really see a major degradation. I haven't see a compelling reason why we should have moderation now. As long as that has not changed I am strongly against moderation. Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
From: Robert Klemme on 15 Apr 2010 01:43 On 14.04.2010 19:41, Robert Dober wrote: > I feel that you are unfair here, it might come as a surprise to some > but I am actually with Tony here. Kind of self protection, because in > a free list it is me who has to decide if someone is a troll, in > distress or not. Sometimes I also decide to make a joke because I > feel the list is just boring. If it were moderated I would not need to > make those decisions, in the first place and I would not see gross > language anymore neither. > Ok I agree that we will lose something, but maybe this something > should be elsewhere. I believe you may underestimate the value of what we would be losing with moderation. Delegating care for a community to a few "professional" (in quotes because they won't be paid) caretakers does have the potential to change the character of the community. I am reading in other places as well and I am always amazed about the kindness and openness of our community here. It may be even more amazing that this happened without moderation. But it may actually be the other way round: because we do not have moderation this is such a friendly place (OK, obviously not all will agree with me here). > As a poster and quite nonconformist I will always step on some folk's > toe. If there were a moderator I probably could not. That should make you wary of moderation, shouldn't it? Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
From: Seebs on 15 Apr 2010 01:40
On 2010-04-15, Robert Klemme <shortcutter(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > I believe you may underestimate the value of what we would be losing > with moderation. Might be losing. Might not. Part of the point is that you think a bit about what you WANT from moderation -- then you set things up to get it. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! |