Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

I don't understand what the problem is. Can't you just choose
not to select those (clearly marked) articles for reading?

I would not characterize this as a "problem." It's a constructive
suggestion to improve Airwaves.

Two issues:
I read Airwaves via digest form, not individual Usenet articles (if
it's even still on Usenet). Regardless, while I *can* scroll past
postings via the digest in which I'm not interested (which I
regularly do on many lists I receive), doing so is inconvenient when
the individual posts are as lengthy as these two regulars are (often
1/3 or 1/4 of an entire digest for just one of them - see forthcoming
remark about bandwidth). I spend enough time reading the info I *want
to* read on the many lists to which I subscribe; I don't need to
waste time downloading and sifting through extended postings that are
better left to their own sites or mailing lists.

#2: It's rude to more or less hijack Airwaves with these posts and
the like when the postings are as long and as regular as these two
examples are. If a single one-off on-topic post is contributed by
someone, that's not a concern. However, it's a waste of bandwidth to
repeatedly, week after week, post long playlists and scripts to a
forum like Airwaves, which is not a playlist or script repository.
There are alternative and more effective methods to distribute the
entire volume of information contained in these posts.

Spam is really only a problem if it's overwhelming, or unmarked.

I didn't suggest the ARRL and WCBN posts are spam. I do, however,
believe it is inappropriate to regularly post *lengthy* playlists and
program scripts to an emailed listserv when (IMO) the courteous and
practical method to share the info is to simply post a URL where
interested readers can find detailed information. Airwaves can
certainly be used to post some headlines from the playlist or script
accompanying the URL to offer an idea of what the updated script or
playlist contains, but not the whole damn things.

This is not a major earth-ending issue, but I think my suggestion is
practical and courteous for readers.

Alan Freed wrote:
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

I don't understand what the problem is. Can't you just choose
not to select those (clearly marked) articles for reading?

I would not characterize this as a "problem." It's a constructive
suggestion to improve Airwaves.

Two issues:
I read Airwaves via digest form, not individual Usenet articles (if
it's even still on Usenet). Regardless, while I *can* scroll past
postings via the digest in which I'm not interested (which I
regularly do on many lists I receive), doing so is inconvenient when
the individual posts are as lengthy as these two regulars are (often
1/3 or 1/4 of an entire digest for just one of them - see forthcoming
remark about bandwidth).

Perhaps we should ask the ARRL and WCBN posters to just post URLs then?

This is not a major earth-ending issue, but I think my suggestion is
practical and courteous for readers.

What say ye? (the rest of ye, anyhow)

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Geek In Charge * 888.480.4NET (4638) *

Alan Freed writes:

I read Airwaves via digest form, not individual Usenet articles (if
it's even still on Usenet).

You could choose to read it on Usenet and killfile the posters whose
posts you don't want to see. That way, the people who *do* want to
read these posts could still see them.

If this group were getting a hundred posts a day, it might make
sense not to allow certain types of posts with a higher than average
annoyance factor. But this is a low traffic group; some days I see
no posts at all on it.


umar
--
URL:http://hippogryph.com/green
Send 'em back to Texas: T minus 293 days, 22 hours, 27 minutes.

Steven J Sobol wrote in message ...
Alan Freed wrote:
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:

I don't understand what the problem is. Can't you just choose
not to select those (clearly marked) articles for reading?

I would not characterize this as a "problem." It's a constructive
suggestion to improve Airwaves.

Two issues:
I read Airwaves via digest form, not individual Usenet articles (if
it's even still on Usenet). Regardless, while I *can* scroll past
postings via the digest in which I'm not interested (which I
regularly do on many lists I receive), doing so is inconvenient when
the individual posts are as lengthy as these two regulars are (often
1/3 or 1/4 of an entire digest for just one of them - see forthcoming
remark about bandwidth).

Perhaps we should ask the ARRL and WCBN posters to just post URLs then?

The amateur radio posts have nothing to do with the ARRL (American Radio
Relay League). They are from another group devoted to amateur radio.
I'm actually not sure if it's the group doing the posting or if
it's a third party.

They don't belong here because amateur radio has nothing to do
with broadcasting (beyond a common history that started with
some people being less interested in radio as a hobby so they
simply built or bought receivers (becoming listeners
at a time when nobody had much idea for using the medium), and then hams
became aware of this so they started broadcasting, ie speaking
to all those listeners at home, and then deliberately setting out
to be broadcast stations.

No, I think they land here because someone is simply going after
the "radio" angle in the newsgroup name, just like someone posted
an ad in the past week looking for WWII surplus receiver, that has nothing
to do with broadcast either.

The only possible reason that the Amateur Radio Newsline posts
belong here is if it's seen as a source of broadcast material
for news outlets or news programs on broadcast stations. And I'm
not sure that fits in here; either it opens the gates for all
kinds of similar groups posting their stuff in the hopes that
broadcast people will see it and make use of the stories, or
nobody is reading it and then there's no point.

Keep in mind that the posts are really accessible if anyone
is interested. At the same time they post here, they post
to a number of newsgroups in the pertinent hierarchy,
rec.radio.amateur.* At the very most, this point only needs
to be added to a periodical post here of repetitive matters
(such as what is on topic). Indeed, such a post could be
made to the newsgroup only (where random people are likely
to be enticed to post), rather than to the mailing list
too.

Realistically, the judge of what's acceptable should be
it's relevants to the newsgroup topic.


Michael

Perhaps a simple way to say it is that if a message is appropriate
for the rec.radio.amateur groups, or the rec.antiques.radio+phono
groups, then it's probably not appropriate for rec.radio.broadcasting.