From: leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler )
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:50:00 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

[I removed sci.misc from the Newsgroups entry, because this doesn't belong
 there.  Followups have been redirected to news.groups, where this
 discussion belongs.]

sidles@stein.u.washington.edu (John Sidles) writes:

>>In article <MATT.93Jan6101442@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>>>There hasn't been very much discussion about sci.physics.research
>>>lately, but most of the comments seem to have been positive, so I will
>>>probably post a CFV in a week or two.  
> 
>If there hasn't been much discussion, what does that say about the need
>for sci.physics.research?  Except for the prospective moderators
>themselves, who else is calling for new group?  Is there any evidence
>that it is a substantial fraction of sci.physics readers?

   I for one am calling for a new group, and it seems to me there are quite
a few others who feel the same, besides the proposed moderators.  There
certainly is a fair amount of discussion going on in news.groups now on
this topic.
   There is no reason why this proposal should need to be supported by
a substantial fraction of current sci.physics readers, since the new
newsgroup will not replace sci.physics, but will supplement it. The goal
is not necessarily to get everyone on sci.physics involved, but rather
to create a group which will meet the needs of a certain subgroup of
sci.physics readers, and hopefully attract many who don't currently read
sci.physics because of the poor signal to noise ratio there.  The only
important issue is thus whether or not there will be sufficient message
volume on the new group to justify its existence.


>I am curious what fraction of the current postings will be deemed
>"rejectable".  If the rejected fraction is small, then why do we
>need sci.physics.research?  And if the rejected fraction is large,
>then why are we setting up such an exclusionary newsgroup?

   This is a useless objection, since anything which can't be posted on 
sci.physics.research can still be posted on sci.physics.  The fraction of
sci.physics postings which would not qualify for the new group is 
undoubtably quite large, as the flame wars and crackpot threads alone 
constitute a large fraction of the volume on sci.physics.  Having a 
group where one can talk about physics without such clutter is a good
thing.


>In summary, there is a substantial down-side to forming a new group.
>Why meddle with the current system, which works OK?  If we want to
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>improve sci.physics, let's do it the old-fashioned way, namely, by
>posting interesting physics.

   The answer to your question, is that many people currently feel that 
the current system is NOT working "OK".  Serious discussion of physics
is being stifled, and serious physicists are discouraged from participating
in sci.physics by the large amount of noise there.  This problem will
not be corrected simply by "posting more interesting physics", even if you
could somehow find a way to make the existing readers do so.

				     ---Steven Leffler
					leffler@physics.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro