scotartt on Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:33:32 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Nettime-Bold and You |
Funnily enough, I've been keeping a database that holds all the messages sent to -bold AND to -l over the past month. This is is part of a forthcoming "roll your own moderation" version of nettime that I've been developing, which will be called "autonomous nettime". It allows any person who wants, to maintain their own sub-lists of nettime content according to whatever criteria they so desire, other people can then view these sub-lists online, (later get them via email). A few people, for example, have asked if it is possible to get a version of nettime that has _just_ the announcers, which is currently impossible. However if someone wants to maintain such a beast on autonomous nettime, then it will be possible to do so. Similarly people will be able to compile sub-nettimes that have just whatever content tickles their fancy, all generated from the original and combined -bold and -l content. An appropriate announcement will be made when this beast is ready for people to try out (soon). Anyway I went through the database and came up with the following statistics comparing -l and -bold messages, and here are the stats; this is over a 14 day period ending approx 16:36 2001-12-11 AEST (about this time yesterday). sent to -l and -bold: 47 compiled from multiple -bold posts and sent to -l: 2 * announcers: 5 * roving reporter: 4 ones found on -l not on -bold: 8 * this is the number of messages found on -l, not the original number of messages on -bold that those are derived from. Of course, the announcer content will mostly come from -bold anyway. "Roving reporter" doesn't seem to go to -bold at all. Of the 8 messages left that were found on -l but not on -bold, there was no consistent person or address, except one was Wolfgang and another the "thing auction"; every single one of those 8 messages would been sent directly to the nettime admin account, whcih makes it impossible for us to cc it to -bold: the whole point of -bold is that it possesses "zero extra moderator work factor"; after all, no one actually pays anyone, or gathers any other tangible benefit, from moderating nettime-l. So that's 12 out of 66 messages that didn't go to -bold or 18% (ignoring the fact of course the announcer's 5 messages is conservatively 20 or more on -bold, and ignoring the total number of -bold messages that may be collapsed into those 7 messages, which would make that figure look even better). Therefore more than 4 out of 5 messages sent to -l are also found on -bold. Hardly "sabotage" I think. We can't help it if the flood of spam and other "stupidification" (great word) in -bold is getting worse every week; that's why -l is moderated. regs scot, > From: "Lachlan Brown" <lachlan@london.com> > To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net, jesis@xs4all.nl > Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 20:47:21 -0500 > Subject: [Nettime-bold] Re: Bolders > > J, > > I wouldn't worry about it too much, people > tend to browse bold via the web site archive > when there's clearly something going on in > the digest; otherwise people who are > terminally engaged in some ongoing project > tend to consume pretty much all there is in > Nettime bold. Its a good source for news on > new projects too. But only to be dipped into > occasionally otherwise you become a > Nettime Bolder Space Cadet First Class, with > Distinction. > > I think the moderators do a good job considering the sheer volume of Nettime > stuff. They don't catch everything but > do present representitive posts and try > to stop the thing getting in a rut. The > only non-bold posts they do are when they > wheel out ancient hacks like my good friend > Sean 'the Baptist' Cubitt to tell us about > the good bread he bakes and how 'net.art' > is destined to redefine the globe as we know > it. > > I also happen to know that it was (not > sure if it still is now that the heat has > gone out of the techbubble) perused avidly > by commercial and governmental monitors anxious to be au fait with the terms of the 'digital revolution'. > > For this reason I doubt any Nettimers > will be rounded up in this Coup, even if > they do write odes to bin Laden. > > Collectively, including all those > heavyweight lurkers, they are Far Too > Powerful to mess with. They have startling > insight. They hold Opinion on matters the > rest of the media and communications world > has not yet considered. > > > > Lachlan Brown > > > > bolders, > > > As you might have noticed nettime-bold is not taken seriously at all by > the nettime moderators. If you look at the list archives you will see > that many if not most of the mails on nettime have never ever been on > bold. Nettime-bold, which was supposed to be the unmoderated version of > nettime, is simply used as nettime's trashcan. Of course the moderators > never really wanted an unmoderated version of nettime, and it took more > then two years of complaining about the way moderation was handled and > applied before bold was finally created at all. The situation at present > reeks of sabotage to me. My question to you is: do you think it makes > any sense to keep nettime bold if it shows hardly anything of nettime? > There are plenty of other unmoderated lists. Should we protest against > this ungoing stupidification of bold? # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net