comp.lang.c.moderated group?

[Dag Viken]

Can anybody explain why the comp.lang.c.moderated group is on life support?
Is there no need for it or no moderator? The C++ moderated group (as well as
the unmoderated) seems very much alive.

Dag

 

[Dan Pop]

Can anybody explain why the comp.lang.c.moderated group is on life support?
Is there no need for it or no moderator? The C++ moderated group (as well as
the unmoderated) seems very much alive.

Moderated groups have (significantly) higher latencies than unmoderated
groups. Why post your question to a newsgroup that is not likely to
deliver an answer until the next day, when you can get your question
answered in 15 minutes in the unmoderated newsgroup?

If c.l.c became completely useless (due to more abuse than it can take),
the regulars could chose to completely abandon it and read c.l.c.m only.
Then, you'll see the junk traffic in c.l.c and the good traffic in
c.l.c.m. This hasn't happened yet, due to the high topicality standards
imposed by the c.l.c regulars and it's not very likely to happen in the
future, either. So, c.l.c.m will remain a marginal newsgroup, nice for
the people who can't invest too much time in a newsgroup dedicated to C
programming.

Dan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Can anybody explain why the comp.lang.c.moderated group is on life support?
Is there no need for it or no moderator?

Probably this group (clc) is good enough at moderating itself. There /is/ a
moderator for clcm as far as I know.

 

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Can anybody explain why the comp.lang.c.moderated group is on life support?
Is there no need for it or no moderator?
Correct.

The C++ moderated group (as well as the unmoderated) seems very much alive.

I don't know about that.
I don't subscribe to it.

 

[E. Robert Tisdale]

If c.l.c became completely useless (due to more abuse than it can take),
the regulars could chose to completely abandon it and read c.l.c.m only.
Then, you'll see the junk traffic in c.l.c and the good traffic in c.l.c.m.
This hasn't happened yet,
due to the high topicality standards imposed by the c.l.c regulars

Nonsense!
A quick survey of the comp.lang.c archives shows that
most ot the off-topic articles
are contributed by these so-called "regulars".

 

[CBFalconer]

Probably this group (clc) is good enough at moderating itself.
There /is/ a moderator for clcm as far as I know.

I suspect Seebs is fairly busy, and doesn't get around to
releasing things too often.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Nonsense!
A quick survey of the comp.lang.c archives shows that
most ot the off-topic articles
are contributed by these so-called "regulars".

You're in no position to make that judgement.

 

[Default User]

You're in no position to make that judgement.

Unfortunately for us, I think we have to include Trollsdale as a
regular these days. So indeed, a good portion of the off-topic material
comes from a regular, E. Robert Tisdale.




Brian Rodenborn

 

[E. Robert Tisdale]

You're in no position to make that judgement.

It's not a judgement. It's plain fact
that anyone can verify by inspecting the archives.

 

[CBFalconer]

Unfortunately for us, I think we have to include Trollsdale as a
regular these days. So indeed, a good portion of the off-topic
material comes from a regular, E. Robert Tisdale.

Actually he has shown signs of reforming recently, enough so that
I have even responded to him a couple of times. This is part of
an attempt to encourage that reformation. I am sure it will take
a long time for the process to complete.