ASDLC moderated group?

On Mar 9, 11:47*am, "Cheri" gserviceatinreachdotcom wrote:
Marengo wrote in message

...



I've been a poster to ASDLC for about 7 or 8 years; I used to post a
lot more frequently. *I don't post nearly as much anymore because I
have other interests and personal issues -- a life in other words --
and my low carb way of eating is so automatic now that I don't obsess
about it as I once did. I just plain don't have the time I once did
to
spend hours posting. I do still frequently lurk and occassionally
will
post a comment or a question. *It has nothing whatsoever to do with
spam that I'm not here more frequently.

I agree Peter, about it being automatic, and there does come a time
when you have it down pat with what works for you. I read every day,
but don't necessarily post every day, and by the time I read, most of
the questions that I would know, have already been answered.

Cheri

I would say most of the decline in posting here is due to the decline
in interest in LC in general. As someone else pointed out, 5 years
ago, it was at a fad stage. Clearly there is far less interest in it
from the general population than at that time. So, most of the new
posts center on a new study, etc. The regulars aren't going to be
discussing the general points of LC that we already know.

I also think the spammers and similar are annoying, but you have that
on any newsgroup. I don't find it that difficult to skip over.

Marengo wrote in message
...

I've been a poster to ASDLC for about 7 or 8 years; I used to post a
lot more frequently. I don't post nearly as much anymore because I
have other interests and personal issues -- a life in other words --
and my low carb way of eating is so automatic now that I don't obsess
about it as I once did. I just plain don't have the time I once did
to
spend hours posting. I do still frequently lurk and occassionally
will
post a comment or a question. It has nothing whatsoever to do with
spam that I'm not here more frequently.


I agree Peter, about it being automatic, and there does come a time
when you have it down pat with what works for you. I read every day,
but don't necessarily post every day, and by the time I read, most of
the questions that I would know, have already been answered.

Cheri

In article ,
"Cheri" gserviceatinreachdotcom wrote:

wrote in message ...


I would say most of the decline in posting here is due to the decline
in interest in LC in general. As someone else pointed out, 5 years
ago, it was at a fad stage. Clearly there is far less interest in it
from the general population than at that time. So, most of the new
posts center on a new study, etc. The regulars aren't going to be
discussing the general points of LC that we already know.

I also think the spammers and similar are annoying, but you have that
on any newsgroup. I don't find it that difficult to skip over.


+++++

Totally agree with your post.

Every newsgroup I read has experienced a sharp decline in traffic
compared with 5 or 10 years ago. It's not just ASDLC.

--
"[xxx] has very definite opinions, and does not suffer fools lightly.
This, apparently, upsets the fools."
---BB cuts to the pith of a flame-fest

Hakan Lane writes:

I would be glad to finish off the thread. Let me just do it by telling
you why I think that it is sad. The group is doing a terrible job of
finding new subscribers. Check the statistics at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...low-carb/about. We
have lost 80 - 90 % of the volume in a few years. I remember how it
was to come here back in 2001 and see a plethora of non-spam posts. In
comparison, there were three new threads for March 7, all started by
the same person who is a long time member. That means that not a
single new person found it worthwhile to ask us anything. We are
obviously not very attractive to usenet browsers.

I was here back then too, and there was always a lot of spam; the
difference is that there's less signal now for the amount of noise.
(Although I still maintain that it's not that bad; and if Google Groups
can't implement basic killfile features that real newsreaders have had
for 20 years, then that's a reflection on Google, not on us. You
wouldn't buy a car that didn't have lights or windows.) A few years
ago, there were more valid messages on this group than I could keep up
with.

Anyway, two things have changed since 2001:

1. LC was booming then. We got new people *every day* back then. A
lot of the non-spam traffic was people asking the same questions over
and over. "Will my kidneys fall out?" "My breath smells bad now; what
should I do?" "My doctor yelled at me; am I killing myself?" We're
probably seeing fewer new people here partly because fewer new people
today are trying LC for the first time. If you were overweight and the
type of person who tries things outside the mainstream, you probably
already tried LC back when it was first big news.

2. There are now dozens of low-carb web forums and mailing lists
competing with this group. Some of them existed in 2001, but most of us
had dialup Internet then, which made web forums even more painful than
they inherently are. There are far more of them now, and they've gotten
better, and broadband Internet has made them more accessible. People
who wanted a more controlled environment than Usenet have already
switched. (This is true in general, not just in this newsgroup. Every
group I checked through that link you gave had a peak a few years ago
and has dropped since then.)

We also have a couple of excellent FAQs that answer all the newbie
questions that used to make up a lot of this group's traffic. Is it
possible people are actually reading them? This group seems to have
evolved mostly into an incubator for LC veterans to share deeper
thoughts about LC and related nutrition issues. Call it "Low Carb 303:
The Science and Reality of Long-Term Low-Carb Living." Maybe the
quantity is down, but the quality is way up.

If that means this isn't a great resource for newbies, that's okay. The
FAQs are still great resources for them, and all those web forums would
be glad to help newbies get started. (Web forums cost money to run,
which means they need to sell advertising or products, which means they
don't need us old hands who are already past the "buying every LC
product" stage.)

All that you say to the imminent contraction of the group into
oblivion is "Good Riddance", turning it into a small club for people
who already know eachother. What is wrong with taking a "Customer is
always right" attitude?

Because there *are* no customers here. To be blunt, we're all here
because of whatever we get out of it. Sure, most of us like to be
helpful (although even that's because helping makes us feel good), but
that's not why we're here. We're here to learn, to brag, to get
inspiration, and to talk to people who have become friends. Gee, sounds
like a club, doesn't it? That's the way *all* the worthwhile Usenet
groups I've participated in are. They evolve to serve the interests of
the people who take the time to post in them.

If we got back to drawing enough new "customers" to have hundreds of new
posts a day, keeping us all too busy reading and answering questions to
debate the latest scientific paper posted by Jim, would that be an
improvement? Not for me. Again, there are plenty of resources for LC
newbies out there that would *love* to have them.

It is not easy to know about spam filters, when you can access
other groups without the kind of mess that we have.

For example? The vast majority of Usenet groups are unmoderated, and
outside the comp. hierarchy, I have yet to see any that don't have their
fair share of spam.

Also consider that many people can't even install their own software,
because they access us from libraries and other places where they
don't have installation privileges. I don't think that anyone who
finds us through Google wants to post here.

That's a good point. It's a shame there's not a good web-based
newsreader (that I know of), but the two underlying technologies don't
mesh very well. I honestly don't think the spam level prevents anyone
from posting though, through Google or anywhere else. You don't have to
sort through spam to post, after all. Maybe it keeps them from reading
the group regularly, though.

I accept that there are hurdles to running a moderated group. I happen
to think that it is important that we can serve new members (even less
savvy Internet users) instead of just giving them up, so I still
wonder if there's not anything to do about all the spam. Remember that
we may help people with some severe health problems if they find us.

I don't want to be mean about this, but: that's not my job. Don't get
me wrong; I love to introduce people to LC and help them with it. I have
to bite my tongue to keep from being an evangelist about it. But that
doesn't mean *this group* has to provide that particular service as its
primary goal. Maybe this group has other purposes.

The approach that you take is to impose a pre-requisite of a spam
filter, which we never tell them about, and which other groups don't
do.

No, you're the one imposing the pre-requisite that the group be
spam-free. We're just telling you how you can accomplish that for
yourself.

Of course, you're welcome to start alt.support.diet.low-carb.moderated.
(Although I personally would try to put it under sci.; alt. groups
seem to get more garbage.)

I don't think that a store manager losing most of his customers would
just tell them that "they were not suited" to shop there. You may go
ahead and disregard this problem and killfile anyone who raises an
opinion different than your own.

Strawman. No one's going to killfile you for having a different
opinion. There's no need to accuse us of intolerance in advance.

Let the group lose all its subscribers to fora who can keep clean of
spam.

Again, this will sound mean, but if people who are flustered or angered
by the spam, and can't or won't use a real newsreader to filter it, go
to other perfectly good forums for LC help....I just don't care. The
people who stay here and filter or ignore the spam will continue to have
good conversations and develop new ideas, and that's fine.



--
Aaron -- 285/253/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

wrote in message ...


I would say most of the decline in posting here is due to the decline
in interest in LC in general. As someone else pointed out, 5 years
ago, it was at a fad stage. Clearly there is far less interest in it
from the general population than at that time. So, most of the new
posts center on a new study, etc. The regulars aren't going to be
discussing the general points of LC that we already know.

I also think the spammers and similar are annoying, but you have that
on any newsgroup. I don't find it that difficult to skip over.


+++++

Totally agree with your post.

Cheri

I think that we just have a difference of opinion of what the group
should do. As for me, I think that "spreading the word" to new people is
more important than internal discussions without the outcome of a diet
change among people who are already into low carbing. That would give us
the chance to really make a difference in someone else's life. On top of
that, it is much more fun to be in an active group with lots of
discussions. I don't agree that it is fine to just let the fora "win".

To inform those of you without spam filters, there are more threads
that are either spam, crosspost or that religious guy than "real" ones
in this group and there have only been one new real thread for the
latest two days. At that stage, I find the group less worthwhile to
visit and I must assume that many newbies turn to other places. Again,
it is a matter of everyone's individual reaction.

Is there no way to stop all that stuff coming from Google groups? You
are right that a large portion of them seems to come from gmail
accounts. Thank you for that observation.

"H.L" wrote:

I think that we just have a difference of opinion of what the group
should do.

Sure, but UseNet is what it IS not what you or I think it SHOULD
be. One reason web fora thrive is they are moderated and UseNet
generally is not - UseNet allows unlimited free speech which
includes ability to abuse without limit. Web fora allow any
moderation method wanted which includes ability for users to
leave and find lighter moderated fora. This is how competition
works.

As for me, I think that "spreading the word" to new people is
more important than internal discussions without the outcome of a diet
change among people who are already into low carbing. That would give us
the chance to really make a difference in someone else's life. On top of
that, it is much more fun to be in an active group with lots of
discussions.

I agree with Aaron on ASLDC being the advanced course. I started
on moderated fora and am still on some.

I don't agree that it is fine to just let the fora "win".

The word "let" does not work right here. You can't change the nature
of UseNet on yuor own and even forming a moderated group (which
I favor and will help on) won't do so. This group in specific will
never
be changed to moderated.

*Is there no way to stop all that stuff coming from Google groups?

Look at the message-id line in my headers. Filter out all messages
that have message-id lines that end like that. Done, say goodbye
to much of the spam and to those specific regulars who post through
Google.

You
are right that a large portion of them seems to come from gmail
accounts.

Look at the from line in headers until you find a person who posts
with a gmail account. Filter out all messages that have a from line
that ends like that. End result is less effective that filtering by
message-id.

"H.L" writes:

I think that we just have a difference of opinion of what the group
should do.

Fair enough.

As for me, I think that "spreading the word" to new people is more
important than internal discussions without the outcome of a diet
change among people who are already into low carbing. That would give
us the chance to really make a difference in someone else's life. On
top of that, it is much more fun to be in an active group with lots of
discussions. I don't agree that it is fine to just let the fora "win".

Not to get too metaphysical, but we are the group; the group is us. We
don't "let" it do anything; it is what we make it. If you want more
discussions, start them. Post recipes you've found or invented, ask
questions, take polls about LC products, try to start weight loss
challenges. Prime the pump by creating an imaginary friend who's just
starting low carb and posting questions as him, then answering them as
yourself. Maybe you'll get something started and make the group more
attractive to newbies.

I certainly wasn't saying that would be wrong; I'm not the arbiter of
the group either, just one of cogs that make it go. If you want to put
the effort into expanding the group back in that direction, that's
great. Some of us who've been here for several years may have lost
some interest in that part of it, but that doesn't mean you can't stir
it back up.

To inform those of you without spam filters, there are more threads
that are either spam, crosspost or that religious guy than "real" ones
in this group and there have only been one new real thread for the
latest two days. At that stage, I find the group less worthwhile to
visit and I must assume that many newbies turn to other places. Again,
it is a matter of everyone's individual reaction.

Well, I won't argue that the quality posts haven't been pretty sparse
lately. I filter out anything with 'Chung' in it and anything
cross-posted to the fat-acceptance group, and I've added a few other
specific addresses over the years, so I don't even know if those people
are posting anymore. I only know Chung is because my scoring newsreader
still shows me some of the responses to him if the responders are scored
high enough to overcome his low score. (If you think killfiles are
complicated, try a scoring newsreader. Total control, though.)

All that left me with 22 new messages this morning, 7 of which were in
this thread. About 4-5 scored down at the bottom look like spam,
including one incoherent Islamic evangelization piece. The rest are
replies to ongoing threads. We do seem to be at an unusually low ebb,
but I wonder how much of that is late-winter doldrums. I think spring
will boost the traffic somewhat. We usually have some gardening talk
here as it relates to LC, and people just have more energy in the
spring. Guess we'll see.

Is there no way to stop all that stuff coming from Google groups? You
are right that a large portion of them seems to come from gmail
accounts. Thank you for that observation.

I wasn't aware gmail was a likely source of spam; someone else must have
said that. You can stop it from showing up in your own newsreader with
a killfile, but there's no way to stop it from entering the group in the
first place, if that's what you mean.



--
Aaron -- 285/253/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz