alt audit?
Pete Ashdown
criteria?
1. Non-binary.
2. More discussion than spam.
3. Have seen traffic in the past year.
--
Pete Ashdown pash...@xmission.com http://pashdown.org Salt Lake City, Utah
XMission Internet Access - http://xmission.com - Voice: 801 539 0852
Peter J Ross
Ashdown <pash...@xmission.com> wrote:
> Has anyone tried to compile a list of alt groups that have the following
> criteria?
I've tried to compile a list in the past, without getting much support
for my attempts, but I don't entirely accept your criteria.
> 1. Non-binary.
That's easy: exclude alt.binaries.*. Any server that's administered at
all competently will already exclude "stealth" binary groups.
> 2. More discussion than spam.
"Discussion" is a subjective term, and I suspect that you're using
"spam" subjectively too. Spam, defined *ob*jectively, according to the
consensus expressed in the spam cancel FAQs, can be fought without a
list of "good" alt.* groups.
Lots of "good" groups attract a lot of spam from time to time,
whenever some nutter discovers H*pCrime's N*wsAgent, so the presence
or absence of spam can't be a reliable criterion.
> 3. Have seen traffic in the past year.
That's also easy. Grab an active file from a well-run text-only
server, such as individual.net, and remove empty or nearly-empty
groups from the list.
ISTM that a news admin who offers her users 1000 usable alt.* groups
(and is willing to add more on request) has an advantage over a news
admin who offers 100000 alt.* groups, most of which are dead.
This discussion should probably be crossposted to alt.config, but I'll
leave that up to you. Any suggestion that looks like a proposal to
"administer" alt.* is likely to result in flames there.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
D. Stussy
news:h2b9us$anq$1...@news-hardy.xmission.com...
> Has anyone tried to compile a list of alt groups that have the following
> criteria?
>
> 1. Non-binary.
> 2. More discussion than spam.
> 3. Have seen traffic in the past year.
Not exactly. However, I've been compiling lists of bogus, "bork",
jibberish, revenge, and vanity groups, plus misspellings of groups. Last
year, I posted a preliminary list for comments. My more recent list
(remaining a work in process) is at http://news.snarked.org/bad-groups .
I don't care if "alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk" gets 100 posts per
day. It's a bogus group and will always be.
Adam H. Kerman
>I don't care if "alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk" gets 100 posts per
>day. It's a bogus group and will always be.
And thus D.Stussy declares himself hierarchy administrator, attempted to
displace Rob Maxwell.
Peter J Ross
<sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> "Pete Ashdown" <pash...@xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:h2b9us$anq$1...@news-hardy.xmission.com...
>> Has anyone tried to compile a list of alt groups that have the following
>> criteria?
>>
>> 1. Non-binary.
>> 2. More discussion than spam.
>> 3. Have seen traffic in the past year.
>
> Not exactly. However, I've been compiling lists of bogus, "bork",
> jibberish, revenge, and vanity groups, plus misspellings of groups. Last
> year, I posted a preliminary list for comments.
Did you pay any attention to the comments? alt.religion.kibology is
still listed for removal.
> My more recent list
> (remaining a work in process) is at http://news.snarked.org/bad-groups .
>
> I don't care if "alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk" gets 100 posts per
> day. It's a bogus group and will always be.
What's wrong with
alt.arts.caricature
alt.asparagus
alt.astrologers
alt.astrology.psychology
alt.astronomy.uk
alt.atheists
alt.auctions
alt.auctions.uk
alt.audio.car
alt.aus.culture
alt.authors
alt.automobiles
alt.autos.ford.ka
to name but a few from /^alt\.a/.
The last example is particularly instructive. It seems that you
personally haven't heard of a Ford automobile called the "Ka", so you
assume the group shouldn't exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ka
I still prefer the opposite approach to yours: instead of providing a
controversial list of groups that should be removed because they don't
match some criterion or other, provide an uncontroversial list of
groups that should be added because they're well-used and well-named.
Peter J Ross
Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
In my opinion, AAVFFF is not a bogus group and never has been.
Since my opinion has precisely the same value as D. Stussy's, can I be
a hierarchy administrator too?
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>D. Stussy <rep...@newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
>>>I don't care if "alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk" gets 100 posts per
>>>day. It's a bogus group and will always be.
>>And thus D.Stussy declares himself hierarchy administrator, attempted to
>>displace Rob Maxwell.
>In my opinion, AAVFFF is not a bogus group and never has been.
>Since my opinion has precisely the same value as D. Stussy's, can I be
>a hierarchy administrator too?
No. You lack the necessary prerequisites.