now we know (advertisements)

Perhaps Yahoo was trying to conserve space on its servers so it could
find room for the brilliant new advertisements that are now on every
post... ??

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> Perhaps Yahoo was trying to conserve space on its servers so it
could
> find room for the brilliant new advertisements that are now on
every
> post... ??

Perhaps Yahoo is trying to pay for all the technology, personnel, and
resources needed to service the (allegedly) nearly 1,000,000
newsgroups using this service. Using it for _free_.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31453.html#31461

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > Perhaps Yahoo was trying to conserve space on its servers so it
> could
> > find room for the brilliant new advertisements that are now on
> every
> > post... ??
>
> Perhaps Yahoo is trying to pay for all the technology, personnel,
and
> resources needed to service the (allegedly) nearly 1,000,000
> newsgroups using this service. Using it for _free_.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Sure, Jon... that makes sense.... It's been pretty much proven
that "banner ads" don't do much... so now we get them right in the
middle of our messages.... Been to Wal*Mart yet?/

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> > Perhaps Yahoo is trying to pay for all the technology, personnel,
> and
> > resources needed to service the (allegedly) nearly 1,000,000
> > newsgroups using this service. Using it for _free_.

Which Usenet has been doing, for free, long before there was a Yahoo,
and is still doing, for free.

> Sure, Jon... that makes sense.... It's been pretty much proven
> that "banner ads" don't do much... so now we get them right in the
> middle of our messages.... Been to Wal*Mart yet?/

Only if we decide to stay. But what is the advantage in doing so?

Google has now aquired the usenet backlog going back to '95, and i think
there is more chance of usenet being permenently archived one place or
another in the global network from now on. If yahoo were to fold, those
archives might disappear. The thing about usenet, if i'm not mistaken, is
that getting a new group up is not so easy, certainly not as easy as
yahoogroups. Also the accuracy rate in terms of all messages showing up,
does not seem to be 100%.

--- In tuning@y..., <dante.interport@r...> wrote:

>The thing about usenet, if i'm not mistaken, is
> that getting a new group up is not so easy, certainly not as easy as
> yahoogroups. Also the accuracy rate in terms of all messages
showing up,
> does not seem to be 100%.

Getting a rec.arts.music group started would require going through an
elaborate poceedure involving a proposal and a vote. Getting an alt
group started is another matter, but even that is not as easy as a
Yahoo group. You should get 100% accuracy with a standard newsgroup;
it will also be free of reformatting idiocy. It could be either
moderated or unmoderated, but spam is discouraged even on unmoderated
groups.

Hosting a mailing list at a university like mine would take about 2
days.
==John

--- In tuning@y..., jpff@c... wrote:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

/tuning/topicId_31453.html#31494

> Hosting a mailing list at a university like mine would take about 2
> days.
> ==John

Hello John, CSOUND maestro!

Yes, that might be good, but there are also complicating factors...
look at what happened to the Mills list... :(

JP

dante.interport@rcn.com () wrote:

> Google has now aquired the usenet backlog going back to '95, and i think
> there is more chance of usenet being permenently archived one place or
> another in the global network from now on. If yahoo were to fold, those
> archives might disappear. The thing about usenet, if i'm not mistaken,
> is
> that getting a new group up is not so easy, certainly not as easy as
> yahoogroups. Also the accuracy rate in terms of all messages showing up,
> does not seem to be 100%.

Google's Usenet archive goes back a lot further than '95. There are also
web archives, and Google themselves could roll one up from their backup
tapes. They do index this group. But yes, a Usenet group would have a
much more friendly archive because it's a standard format.

I think rec.music.microtonal would be an excellent idea. It depends on
what the rest of you think. I posted a link to the process for setting it
up on metatuning a while back. There's a bit of rigmarole to go through,
and the crunch is you need 100 net votes in favour.

The ISP I'm moving my website to can also host a mailing list. I don't
know the details, or therefore what advantages it would have over an
academic one. The only advantage I can see of moving to a text-only
academic list would be getting at the archives via e-mail. The
disadvantage would be losing the web interface, which is the only bit
people don't like now anyway.

Graham

> Google's Usenet archive goes back a lot further than '95.

you're right, Graham, now they go back to '81!;

http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announce_20.html

Graham, love the title -- rec.music.microtonal

Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> Getting a rec.arts.music group started would require going through
> an elaborate poceedure involving a proposal and a vote. Getting an
> alt group started is another matter, but even that is not as easy
> as a Yahoo group.

One certainly must admit, starting up one of this Yahoo groups is
easier than sneezing; maybe that's why there are so many?

> You should get 100% accuracy with a standard newsgroup;

Somewhere between "should" and dante's point lies the truth.

> it will also be free of reformatting idiocy.

As it should be!

> It could be either moderated or unmoderated, but spam is
> discouraged even on unmoderated groups.

Again, I like moderation, but c'mon - spam is discouraged by 99 our
of 100 housewives! Spam is the evil of the bit stream. But can a
moderator effectively stop it? I have to say, I've seen virtually
*no* spam on these Yahoo groups, which is mainly just an astonishment.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

> Somewhere between "should" and dante's point lies the truth.

If you are not out on the Internet boonies, you will have a decent
newsfeed; even if you don't, you can find a free server easily enough.
A "rec" toplevel domain name will entail good propagation.

> Again, I like moderation, but c'mon - spam is discouraged by 99 our
> of 100 housewives! Spam is the evil of the bit stream. But can a
> moderator effectively stop it?

A moderator can stop it 100%, and by "discouraged" I meant active
measures are taken.

Gene,

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> If you are not out on the Internet boonies, you will have a decent
> newsfeed; even if you don't, you can find a free server easily
> enough. A "rec" toplevel domain name will entail good propagation.

Hmm. Still not as easy as simply signing up for a listserv or
majordomo mailing list and having the stuff come right to your inbox.
And any solution (if there is a problem) should service the maximum
number of people in the best way. We can't afford to leave out anyone
in such a small community, so access is key.

> A moderator can stop it 100%, and by "discouraged" I meant active
> measures are taken.

There. *That* statement is clear, and now I understand about the
moderator-status. Of course the moderator themselves will have to
bring impressive administrative and 'people' skills to function well
and transparantly.

Still things to think about...

Cheers,
Jon

>>>>> "jpehrson2" == jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com> writes:

jpehrson2> Yes, that might be good, but there are also complicating factors...
jpehrson2> look at what happened to the Mills list... :(

Sorry for my bad memory, but what did happen?

The csound list has been running for over 5 years from here, and in an
earlier version since 1992; the vegetarian list has been continuous
since 1993.

If it is decided to have a news group then I would recommend that it
is moderated. I proposed a group some years ago, and I now moderate
it. I get 4-10 spam messages a day for that list, and it is a low
volume. It should be possible to robo-moderate, with automatic
acceptance from known people. I would expect that the vote would be
positive, as it has been running as a mailing list for a long time,
and that is one of the main criteria, as is the volume of mail on the
current list.

==John ffitch

--- In tuning@y..., <jpff@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31453.html#31547

> >>>>> "jpehrson2" == jpehrson2 <jpehrson@r...> writes:
>
> jpehrson2> Yes, that might be good, but there are also
complicating factors...
> jpehrson2> look at what happened to the Mills list... :(
>
> Sorry for my bad memory, but what did happen?
>

Hello John fffitch!

Well, my understanding is that somebody "pulled the plug" on it...
either they left the University or decided they didn't want to devote
the server space to it. That could always happen...

best,

Joe Pehrson