RFD: misc.jobs reorganiza
Eugene N. Miya
>EU>Killfiles: If YOUR site doesn't have killfiles, it's your
>EU>responsibility to go to your news provider and ask for a full
>EU>function news system, so you can search, cancel, kill, cross-post,
>EU>etc.
>
>Do you really expect everyone who is unemployed to be able to afford
>a news provider with enough spare cash to do this?
1) Note: your first comment on priorities has been recorded by me.
I have some sympathy to you position, I have added news.groups as a cross post
to acknowledge receipt of your comments.
2) We the proposers have to draw the line some place. I was not alone
in the above comment, and I didn't make it first. This is not without
precedent, in the case of computer graphics, SIGGRAPH put its foot down
and said no more impact printer raster graphics.
You as a holder of cash still have the power of cash, and talking to
service providers and developers to influence their policy.
This has several advantages beyond the scope of this discussion.
A service provider (noting a comment made Crispin made to you) not providing
the group
news.groups
is not providing you with a service. The news.* hierarchy is the most
important set of groups used to administer the net. You are not
getting service if you do not get this hierarchy.
>EU>Robomoderation
>EU>-----
>
>Likely to be a good idea if it can be arranged to avoid excessive
>requirements for the posting and reading software. For example, it
>should allow for posting software that can't add extra header lines
>and can't create a subject line longer than 25 characters by allowing
>an alternate format where the poster places this information in the
>body and the robomoderator copies it to the header lines.
Yes, this is a problem as your subject line notes and shows.
I am aware of these kinds of limitations as I have experimented on
these kinds of length issues as a few people know.
>Should NOT require the reading software to have the capability to reply
>to a different newsgroup. Robomoderator can be allowed to divert
>followups there automatically, but should email the poster that this
>has been done if possible, at least once per poster.
I agree with email, I do not agree with diversion. It is not the
responsibility of a dumb program to redirect a post when a poster might
not want that redirection. A post is a deliberate act and your consequences
are your responsibility, not those of a machine beyond what you intend.
>Neither should force the job type information out of the first 25 character
>of the Subject: line, which is all that gets through some gateways, and
>should NOT require a Subject: line over 25 characters without allowing
>an alternate format where the subject line is automatically copied from
>the body of the message. The first 25 characters should contain enough
>information to weed out most of the unsuitable jobs, even in a search
>covering most of the US.
This is a case where I think the 25 character limit is ridiculous.
Consider a title of a friend:
Stable isotope bio-geo-chemist.
That's his title. If he posts a resume, he couldn't. It's just as silly
as an 80-column punch card.
The problem will ultimately democratic. You need to get hundreds if not
thousands of people to vote on 25-char limits, and I think I can
say you will have a hard time. Tyranny of the majority.
I am not completely unsympathetic to your problems, but even 300 baud
modems are fall into disuse.
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
My 3rd favorite use of a flame thrower is "Fahrenheit 451."
A Ref: Uncommon Sense, Alan Cromer, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.
Brad Appleton
cri...@csd.uwo.ca (Crispin Cowan) writes:
>In article <B5D7D193@metronet> of misc.jobs.misc,
>robert miles <ROBERT.MILES@metronet> wrote:
First off - dont forget to include news.groups in the newsgroups line
of all articles in this thread. Otherwise your comments may not be
taken into consideration.
>>requirements for the posting and reading software. For example, it
>>should allow for posting software that can't add extra header lines
>>and can't create a subject line longer than 25 characters by allowing
>>an alternate format where the poster places this information in the
>>body and the robomoderator copies it to the header lines.
>>
>No. Absolutely not. Requiring a minimum of info in the subject is one
>of the largest benefits to robomoderation, and I refuse to surrender it
>to accomodate toy news software.
Well - I dont necessarily think *requiring* the min-Subject-info is
the robomoderators greatest advantages. *Providing/Ensuring* it is!
Now, it could provide this by *requiring* it on the subject line,
and/or it could provide it by *requiring* some auxiliary headers in
the body of the article, from which it can compose the subject line.
Although being able to scan the Subject-lines for the required info
is nice, I think it is much easier (although perhaps more inconvenient
to some) to have the information in auxiliary headers in the body of the
article as in:
<news-headers> ...
<article body begins here>
Job-Title: required text
Job-Location: required text
Job-Provider: employer name
blah blah blah blah ...
It is easier for Robo(tm) to tell which required tidbits are missing
by looking in the body for the above, rather than by doing some
AI-expert systems analysis of the given subject line. All it has to
do is check the presence of the necessary items by looking for the
"Job-*" lines (or whatever its name happens to be), and rejecting the
article if the required fields are not present, or if they have no
accompanying text. Then the robomoderator could compose the subject
line, not only with the min-info, but in a standard format as well.
Articles without the Job-* headers would be rejected, so many would
have to learn the new format at the expense of some small initial
inconvenience, but it would also do a good job of rejecting followups,
and non job-offers.
--
Brad.A...@mail.csd.harris.com Harris Computer Systems, Fort Lauderdale
"And miles to go before I sleep." DISCLAIMER: I said it, not my employer!