Why not a moderated Usenet group?

I posed this question before in another thread it but probably got overlooked and never got much of a response, so I'm posting it again:

I have often wondered, but never asked, if anyone had looked into starting a moderated Usenet group, and if not, why not? I don't know exactly what would be involved in getting one started, but moderated Usenet groups do exist, although if I remember correctly they can't be under the alt. hierarchy. While this board is doing a great job of taking the place of AED, a usenet group would be archived and searchable by Google.

Added in this post:

Another potential benefit would be that people looking for DL info on Usenet would likely come across such a group instead of just finding AED. The "Official" FAQ for such a group could refer people here as well as to other useful sites. With the current situation I can easily imagine someone stumbling into AED and beating a hasty retreat without coming across any useful info such as postings referring them here or to the "Official" or "Unofficial" FAQs.

------------------
Larry Walker

 

Hi, Larry!

Yes, I agree with you. Another benefit of a Usenet group, or moderated Usenet group in this case, is the ability to crosspost to relevant newsgroups. I did that with AED.

Best regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

PS: Some people have noted that one disadvantage of a moderated group is that responses would take time to get approved and posted.

 

Karlos Lacaye writes:
Some people have noted that one disadvantage of a moderated group is that responses would take time to get approved and posted.

The arguments for a news group are persuasive, but, my goodness, the amount of time required! Even in this very modest moderated forum, the amount of time that Chip, Tom, and Bill put in is, I think, considerable. The two big moderated groups in this field (AEDnet and DEOS) are both university-sponsored (Penn State, Nova), and moderated by salaried employees. So one wonders how a moderated DegreeInfo would be financed and run?

 

Karlos Lacaye writes:
Some people have noted that one disadvantage of a moderated group is that responses would take time to get approved and posted.

The arguments for a news group are persuasive, but, my goodness, the amount of time required! Even in this very modest moderated forum, the amount of time that Chip, Tom, and Bill put in is, I think, considerable. The two big moderated groups in this field (AEDnet and DEOS) are both university-sponsored (Penn State, Nova), and moderated by salaried employees. So one wonders how a moderated DegreeInfo would be financed and run?

 

Perhaps by having a free section and a subscription section. The subscription could offer detailed, up-to-date information about schools, a "tell me what you think about this" for a fee section, or even a full-blown consulting service.

Advertising could also generate revenue, but I'm dubious about the potential revenue, not to mention the conflict of interest dangers (unless your name begins with "P").

Or, sell the whole thing to someone who can make money at it. (There's that "P" word again!)

Rich Douglas, who has absolutely no entrepenurial sense.

 

I think the bottom line is that the only way that a moderated Usenet group can work is restricting all posting to a specific person or a specific set of individuals, i.e, the moderator(s). That means there's a tremendous burden of work placed on this moderator(s)and an inconsistent period of time between the attempt to post and the actual post. As opposed to this forum where you must log on and if a post is inappropriate then it is removed after the fact and if someone refuses to follow the rules then they can be banned altogether.