:If we ignore the news admin concern for a moment, it seems to me that the
:reason to have scit.ex is to achieve a more rigorous moderation than
:possible with automoderation alone, while not tampering with the existing
:scit. Is this correct, Prasad garu?
yes, that was what i had in mind.
:If you agree, then it makes sense to
:first agree on the quality and extent of the proposed moderation. In a
:separate post you indicated that you looked into the automoderation
:software and that you thought that it was powerful enough for our purpose.
:Does this mean that the scit.ex discussion is moot as far as you are
:concerned?
no, the discussion on scit.ex can be continued if everyone
is interested in considering it as an option.
Both suresh and sitarammayya garu did not favour
human moderation and said that they thought auto-moderation
could do the job. in my other post, i was trying to
show the settings under which automoderation can work.
most important among them - to limit the no. of articles
that can be posted per day per account to 5 or 6. without
such a restriction, a dedicated person can easily hijack
the group once again. thus the benifits of automoderation
have to be weighed against the limitations it poses.
is moderation better? or is, limiting the no. of articles
per day per a/c better? depending on what sciters think of
it, we can find the proper direction to proceed.
prasad
-- ********************************************************************* Prasad Chodavarapu * WWW Homepage: * 305 N.Lincoln Av., #S105 * * Urbana IL 61801 * http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~chodavar* ********************************************************************* ph:(217)-344-0473(R) * "manasanE oka sampada prati * (217)-244-6909(O) * manishilOnU unDanI, mamatalE * ********************************** prati manasulO koluvunDanI" * e-mail:chodavar@students.uiuc.edu* --rAjasrI * *********************************************************************