moderate or dissolve this NG ??

Discussion in 'SolidWorks' started by bill allemann, Dec 29, 2008.

  1. In looking at the (lack of) content, the spamming, nutcase postings,
    bleachbot robo postings, etc, etc.
    isn't it time to either moderate the ng or just put it out of its misery ?
    who has ownership, by the way ?

    just curious
    bill
     
    bill allemann, Dec 29, 2008
    #1
  2. bill allemann

    Black Dragon Guest

    Feel free to ignore the noise.
    Moderating this newsgroup is not possible.

    Removing it is possible.

    Information on how to go about it can be found here:
    http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php

    Do be prepared to fail horribly as that will very likely be the result of
    any attempts to remove comp.cad.solidworks.
    Usenet is comprised of many separate news servers working in cooperation
    with each other. Nobody owns it or any of the newsgroups on it.
     
    Black Dragon, Dec 29, 2008
    #2
  3. bill allemann

    tnik Guest

    It's not owned per se. There is a consortium of geeks out there that
    approve/disapprove of newsgroups when they are founded. There was
    already a discussion about this topic this year labeled "OT:
    comp.cad.solidworks Charter changes"
     
    tnik, Dec 29, 2008
    #3
  4. bill allemann

    Black Dragon Guest

    B8MB = "consortium of geeks"?
     
    Black Dragon, Dec 29, 2008
    #4
  5. Bill,

    We looked into moderating this group. Those that control the status of
    comp.cad.solidworks made it very clear that:

    1. It was technically infeasible to moderate an existing group.
    2. That the only viable alternative within comp.cad was to create
    comp.cad.solidworks.moderated
    3. That users of comp.cad.solidworks should not use google or other news
    group readers that cannot filter out all the crap. Think of this solution
    as saying it is easier to put a crap plow on the front of your car than
    having the septic wagon close the valve on the back of the truck. They
    are probably right in this case for the simple reason that the guys
    driving the septic wagon don't get paid to police the content.

    Those that create most of the noise on the group also:

    1. Refused to clean up their acts in spite of group pressure to do so.
    2. Swamped the moderation discussion making it look like they were the
    ones most active. This was not unexpected since they had the most to lose
    if any sort of moderation was put into place.

    And there are a few inconvenient realities:

    1. Moderation is a BIG job which requires a group of people who are
    willing to:
    a) Take a lot of static when someone is banned.
    b) Spend the time necessary
    c) Learn the nuts and bolts of news group operation.
    d) Spend the money necessary to maintain the moderation software
    and other services.
    2. The core group of users has dwindled to a shadow of what it once was.
    Most of the good contributors have shifted to solidworks own forums,
    blogs, other moderated support sites.
    3. The people who control moderation care very little about what is
    posted on any particular news group, but they do care alot about posting
    volume. So the very people creating the noise can swamp out those who
    wish to do what the group was intended to do. In other words they will
    make not judgements as to what a valid post should be.
    4. It only takes one or two noise makers to swamp an open group to the
    point where it is useless.
    5. In these days of free software and let somebody else do it for me
    there seems to be little interest in cleaning up the group, especially
    since SolidWorks has lost interest in an open user forum.
    6. Most people are not going to be attracted to a forum that requires the
    level of technical expertise that a newsgroup requires just to get clean
    postings.

    For those that want a clean feed without the cmesg postings I would
    suggest searching google for an alternative to their system. google has
    been dropping the ball lately in a number of areas, newsgroups being one,
    and mapping being another which is a shame.

    I personally would support dropping comp.cad.solidworks at this time
    since it is obviously not reflecting well on our professional status as
    users of solidworks.
     
    Paul B. Kellner, Dec 30, 2008
    #5
  6. bill allemann

    jon_banquer Guest

    I'm looking at your worthless post as well. It's the same kind of post
    that has ruined this newsgroup because it doesn't address what the
    real problem with SolidWorks is.

    SolidWorks is a history based modeling system that like other history
    based modeling systems sucks at dealing with non-native solids and
    with working with someone else’s design and trying to figure out what
    that design intent is so you can easily modify their design.
    Unfortunately losers like you think the answer is to just remodel the
    part.

    I'd like to suggest that you and the rest of your fellow losers stop
    your incessant whining and do something useful like start pushing
    SolidWorks Corp for the needed Direct Modeling tools. See my blog for
    some clues on what those tools are and who's putting them in their
    products.

    Jon Banquer
    San Diego, CA
    http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com/
     
    jon_banquer, Dec 30, 2008
    #6
  7. bill allemann

    Black Dragon Guest

    What a bunch of hooey.

    If just 10% of the people who came here and posted their support for
    changing the status to a moderated newsgroup ACTUALLY STARTED USING THE
    NEWSGROUP as it is now, the noise likely would get drowned out.

    But no, all you choose to do is repeatedly keep complaining about the
    little bit of noise being posted here instead of trying to encourage
    Solidworks users to post about Solidworks.

    In other words, you are part of the very problem you are trying to
    resolve.
    If you're seeing control messages outside of control newsgroups you
    should contact the admin of the server you are using and inform them
    their server is mis-configured.
    That's not a valid reason to remove a newsgroup.

    --
    Black Dragon

    The aim of a joke is not to degrade the human being but to remind him that
    he is already degraded.
    -- George Orwell
     
    Black Dragon, Dec 30, 2008
    #7
  8. bill allemann

    jon_banquer Guest


    The only thing that has been dropped, Kellner is you on your head.
    You're a first class moron with no clues on the tools needed in a CAD
    system to modify someone else's design or work with non-native solids
    without remodeling the part from scratch. You're a total failure both
    in your inability to understand what the tools needed are and in your
    failed and laughable attempt to moderate this newsgroup. Suggest you
    go back to the failing moderated Google SolidWorks group where one
    can’t criticize SolidWorks that you're so proud of and stay there.

    Jon Banquer
    San Diego, CA
    http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com/
     
    jon_banquer, Dec 30, 2008
    #8
  9. After filtering out posts by JB and anyone who responds to him I find,
    for example, 7 posts on the 17th worth even considering. But it is usable
    after filtering.
     
    Paul B. Kellner, Dec 30, 2008
    #9
  10. As I recall, you were the one who pointed out to the Big8 that Matt
    Lombard was encouraging people to participate in a change in this group.
    And you did it in a such a way to disparage Matt who, whether you like it
    or not, has a large following and was trying to get interest back up in
    the newsgroup. I can't say I have seen you contributing much to actual
    questions by users which is the only way to keep interest up. Prove me
    wrong in the next week. Let's see who can field more solidworks
    questions.
     
    Paul B. Kellner, Dec 30, 2008
    #10
  11. bill allemann

    TOP Guest

    You won't find a link. At the time he had his postings auto-expire.
     
    TOP, Dec 30, 2008
    #11
  12. bill allemann

    Black Dragon Guest

    My posts aren't displayed on Google Groups after 7 days is all. You can
    find them on any news server with decent retention, that discussion was
    not very long ago.
     
    Black Dragon, Dec 30, 2008
    #12
  13. bill allemann

    Black Dragon Guest

    Your recollection of the actual events which took place is quite
    incorrect. I did not disparage anyone, I merely pointed out the facts to
    news.groups.
    He encouraged people to sign up with Google Groups and post an "I agree"
    in response to your survey. That's not in any way promoting the use of
    the newsgroup, that's merely trying to slew a poll and has always been
    frowned upon by the people who manage the Big 8 hierarchy.

    If anybody is truly interested in getting newsgroup usage back up to
    where it used to be, they should be leading by example BY USING THE
    NEWSGROUP THEMSELVES.
     
    Black Dragon, Dec 30, 2008
    #13
  14. bill allemann

    Black Dragon Guest

    From his perspective I torpedoed his proposal to moderate the group. At
    the time that point of view was perfectly understandable but by the end
    of the lengthy discussion with news.groupies it should have been perfectly
    clear to him that is not the case.

    When he realized he was not going to get what he originally wanted he
    looked for someone to place the blame on and that someone is me and he's
    still at it today. It's quite OK, I've got thick skin. But I'm fresh out
    of crying towels. :)
     
    Black Dragon, Dec 30, 2008
    #14
  15. bill allemann

    jon_banquer Guest

    As I recall, you were the one who pointed out to the Big8 that Matt
    Like Paul Kellner and Tom Brewer, Matt Lombard doesn't have clue one
    what those in manufacturing need for CADCAM tools. Idiots like these
    refuse to address why the history based modeling tools in Pro/E and
    SolidWorks are a total failure when it comes to working with non-
    native solids or when you have to try and understand someone else's
    design intent.

    Here is one person who has figured out who idiots like Matt Lombard
    are what idiots like Matt Lombard are trying so hard to protect:

    http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2008/12/matt-reviews-synchtech.html

    "Matt - Thanks for that interesting view of ST from a SolidWorks
    user's perspective.

    But, with regards to that technology, I think you and others in this
    conversation are not be seeing the larger picture.

    What ST and its peers will ultimately do is make CADD and CADD-like
    functionality accessible to people that are not trained CADD operators
    or experts like you - because they shouldn't have to be highly-trained
    or experts, regardless of who may believe that incredibly complicted,
    hard-to-use CADD systems coindicentally serve as a convenient means of
    protecting ones 'domain' and maintaining the high value that's
    typically placed on their skills.

    The ultimate goal of ST is to allow those who consume our designs to
    participate in the design process in new and much more interactive
    ways that were not previously possible or practicle, due to the
    barriers imposed by traditional CADD systems like SolidWorks,
    Inventor, et.al.

    Just as anyone can pick up a pencil and sketch out their ideas on
    paper, we want anyone to be able to easily do the same with a
    computer, in 3D, and with little or no training.

    That's what emerging technolgies like ST are really about, and given
    the aformentioned goals, one can also understand why some may regard
    it as more of a threat, rather than merely a better, more productive
    way of working." ... Tony Tanzillo


    Jon Banquer
    San Diego, CA
    http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com/
     
    jon_banquer, Dec 30, 2008
    #15
  16. bill allemann

    jon_banquer Guest

    As I recall, you were the one who pointed out to the Big8 that Matt
    Like Paul Kellner and Tom Brewer, Matt Lombard doesn't have clue one
    what those in manufacturing need for CADCAM tools. Idiots like these
    refuse to address why the history based modeling tools in Pro/E and
    SolidWorks are a total failure when it comes to working with non-
    native solids or when you have to try and understand someone else's
    design intent.

    Here is one person who has figured out who idiots like Matt Lombard
    are and what idiots like Matt Lombard are trying so hard to protect:

    http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2008/12/matt-reviews-synchtech...

    "Matt - Thanks for that interesting view of ST from a SolidWorks
    user's perspective.

    But, with regards to that technology, I think you and others in this
    conversation are not be seeing the larger picture.

    What ST and its peers will ultimately do is make CADD and CADD-like
    functionality accessible to people that are not trained CADD operators
    or experts like you - because they shouldn't have to be highly-trained
    or experts, regardless of who may believe that incredibly complicted,
    hard-to-use CADD systems coindicentally serve as a convenient means of
    protecting ones 'domain' and maintaining the high value that's
    typically placed on their skills.

    The ultimate goal of ST is to allow those who consume our designs to
    participate in the design process in new and much more interactive
    ways that were not previously possible or practicle, due to the
    barriers imposed by traditional CADD systems like SolidWorks,
    Inventor, et.al.

    Just as anyone can pick up a pencil and sketch out their ideas on
    paper, we want anyone to be able to easily do the same with a
    computer, in 3D, and with little or no training.

    That's what emerging technolgies like ST are really about, and given
    the aformentioned goals, one can also understand why some may regard
    it as more of a threat, rather than merely a better, more productive
    way of working." ... Tony Tanzillo

    Jon Banquer
    San Diego, CA
    http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com/
     
    jon_banquer, Dec 30, 2008
    #16
  17. bill allemann

    jon_banquer Guest

    As I recall, you were the one who pointed out to the Big8 that Matt
    Like Paul Kellner and Tom Brewer, Matt Lombard doesn't have clue one
    what those in manufacturing need for CADCAM tools. Idiots like these
    refuse to address why the history based modeling tools in Pro/E and
    SolidWorks are a total failure when it comes to working with non-
    native solids or when you have to try and understand someone else's
    design intent.

    Here is one person who has figured out who idiots like Matt Lombard
    are and what idiots like Matt Lombard are trying so hard to protect:

    http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2008/12/matt-reviews-synchtech.html

    "Matt - Thanks for that interesting view of ST from a SolidWorks
    user's perspective.

    But, with regards to that technology, I think you and others in this
    conversation are not be seeing the larger picture.

    What ST and its peers will ultimately do is make CADD and CADD-like
    functionality accessible to people that are not trained CADD operators
    or experts like you - because they shouldn't have to be highly-trained
    or experts, regardless of who may believe that incredibly complicted,
    hard-to-use CADD systems coindicentally serve as a convenient means of
    protecting ones 'domain' and maintaining the high value that's
    typically placed on their skills.

    The ultimate goal of ST is to allow those who consume our designs to
    participate in the design process in new and much more interactive
    ways that were not previously possible or practicle, due to the
    barriers imposed by traditional CADD systems like SolidWorks,
    Inventor, et.al.

    Just as anyone can pick up a pencil and sketch out their ideas on
    paper, we want anyone to be able to easily do the same with a
    computer, in 3D, and with little or no training.

    That's what emerging technolgies like ST are really about, and given
    the aformentioned goals, one can also understand why some may regard
    it as more of a threat, rather than merely a better, more productive
    way of working." ... Tony Tanzillo

    Jon Banquer
    San Diego, CA
    http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com/
     
    jon_banquer, Dec 30, 2008
    #17
  18. bill allemann

    jon_banquer Guest

    As I recall, you were the one who pointed out to the Big8 that Matt
    Like Paul Kellner and Tom Brewer, Matt Lombard doesn't have clue one
    what those in manufacturing need for CADCAM tools. Idiots like these
    refuse to address why the history based modeling tools in Pro/E and
    SolidWorks are a total failure when it comes to working with non-
    native solids or when you have to try and understand someone else's
    design intent.

    Here is one person who has figured out who idiots like Matt Lombard
    are and what idiots like Matt Lombard are trying so hard to protect:

    http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2008/12/matt-reviews-synchtech.html

    "Matt - Thanks for that interesting view of ST from a SolidWorks
    user's perspective.

    But, with regards to that technology, I think you and others in this
    conversation are not be seeing the larger picture.

    What ST and its peers will ultimately do is make CADD and CADD-like
    functionality accessible to people that are not trained CADD operators
    or experts like you - because they shouldn't have to be highly-trained
    or experts, regardless of who may believe that incredibly complicted,
    hard-to-use CADD systems coindicentally serve as a convenient means of
    protecting ones 'domain' and maintaining the high value that's
    typically placed on their skills.

    The ultimate goal of ST is to allow those who consume our designs to
    participate in the design process in new and much more interactive
    ways that were not previously possible or practicle, due to the
    barriers imposed by traditional CADD systems like SolidWorks,
    Inventor, et.al.

    Just as anyone can pick up a pencil and sketch out their ideas on
    paper, we want anyone to be able to easily do the same with a
    computer, in 3D, and with little or no training.

    That's what emerging technolgies like ST are really about, and given
    the aformentioned goals, one can also understand why some may regard
    it as more of a threat, rather than merely a better, more productive
    way of working." ... Tony Tanzillo

    Jon Banquer
    San Diego, CA
    http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com/
     
    jon_banquer, Dec 30, 2008
    #18
  19. bill allemann

    Cliff Guest

    I'm not seeing the "spamming" (other than jb) or the
    "bleachbot robo posting" via my Usenet server.
    And jb seems the nutcase ....

    Suggest changing to another server.
     
    Cliff, Dec 30, 2008
    #19
  20. bill allemann

    Cliff Guest

    Who forced you to "subscribe" to it?
    And what have you posted?
     
    Cliff, Dec 30, 2008
    #20
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.