65456 - Only accept posts from people who have read the FAQ ("robo-moderated" newsgroup)

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(mozilla.org Graveyard :: Server Operations, task)

Description

[Andreas Franke (gone)]

There is a general agreement that reporting bugs to the newsgroups is a bad
thing. To avoid spamming developer newsgroups with bug reports, some "catchy"
non-developer newsgroups like mozilla.bugs.browser and mozilla.bugs.mailnews may
be created to attract attention. Their only purpose is to make potential posters
read the FAQ. (I have linked to a draft for such an FAQ above.)

The goal is to force people to read the FAQ first. Therefore, these groups
should be made moderated, and a program should be set up to be the moderator.
This program should only allow posts that either

a) contain the URL of the FAQ in the message body

or

b) are from someone who has successfully posted to that group before (in this
case, the URL of the FAQ should be appended to the posting, if it's not already
contained in the message, see alternative b) in bug 65451)

If the post is rejected, a message should be sent to the poster that contains
the URL of the FAQ and asks him to read the FAQ and then re-post the modified
message.

Condition b) will increase usability a lot for those who frequently post to
these groups (e.g reply & answer the questions raised there).

A nice side effect of this mechanism is that these groups will be completely
free of spam.

Comment 1

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Again, this idea was covered at the time of the newsgroup reorg. AIUI, we agreed 
to leave it, and see if the other measures we are taking reduced the flow of bug 
reports to the newsgroups. 

Gerv

Comment 2

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

from bug 65451:

------- Additional Comments From Ben Bucksch 2001-01-14 14:28 -------

[...]
I like the requirement to read the FAQ before being able to post. If a reader
posts for the first time, the msg doesn't get through until he answers to the
software with a keyword (similar to the mailing-list subscription confirmation).
The keyword (and its existance) is mentioned only in the FAQ. Once the poster
sent the keyword, that From address is free to post (and the first post is
automatically posted). It could be implemented via a moderated newsgroup, just
that the moderator is software.

Who could implement it? (I guess, Netscape IT wouldn't.)


------- Additional Comments From Ben Bucksch 2001-01-14 14:31 -------

Of course, the first post should bounce with a hint to the FAQ URL.

Comment 3

[Andreas Franke (gone)]

In answer to Gerv:

This is just to put this alternative on the table, visible for everybody, and to
evaluate the related technical issues. If other means are sufficient to cut down
on clueless posts, that's fine.

See also Ben Bucksch's thread on n.p.m.webtools titled "Require to read FAQ
before posting". It looks like such a mechanism is used for comp.lang.perl.misc:
news://news.mozilla.org:119/B687A00C.3A25%25zach%40zachlipton.com

Well, I see that your current proposal still doesn't contain any .bugs
newsgroups...

I was referring to news://news.mozilla.org:119/3A349C7A.EAE522F5%40univ.ox.ac.uk

> > 1. Create some "catchy" additional newsgroups that are not intended to be
> > used as a development communications channel in the first place (e.g.
> > mozilla.bugs.browser, mozilla.bugs.mail-news).
> > 2. Make them moderated by a robot that points new posters to an FAQ page.
> 
> OK, I'm almost convinced. Does anyone else have any arguments pro or con
> for this?
> 
> Gerv

and news://news.mozilla.org:119/3A34D373.833A2826%40univ.ox.ac.uk

> mozilla.bugs.*; trying to post to these gets a reply pointing to the FAQ
> on how to search Bugzilla and file bug reports (as drafted by Andreas.) So
> no posts ever make it through at all. This is rather hacky, but I think it
> might well be effective.
>
> [...mozilla.users... snipped]
> 
> My (current ;-) view is that we should have bugs.browser and
> bugs.mail-news (and perhaps a couple more), as above. We should also have
> users.general and users.wishlist - both as discussion-traps. They are
> unmoderated, but wishlist has a regularly-posted FAQ URL.

Comment 4

[Risto Kotalampi]

> I guess, Netscape IT wouldn't.

I doubt. "Netscape IT's" (what is it?) resources are extremely limited and 
focused to other things. But stay tuned.

Comment 5

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

OK, it's a fair cop, guv :-)

Seriously, we can always create more later. As they are currently envisaged,
they are just a bit hacky, so I was hoping we could get away without them.

Gerv

Comment 6

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

I just notice the summary. I intended this proposal for *most* mozilla
newsgroups, not just mozilla.bugs.*. Changing SUMMARY.

Comment 7

[Andreas Franke (gone)]

Re-adding "newsgroup" and "moderate" to summary to make the bug easier to find.

Comment 8

[Risto Kotalampi]

Moving to nobody until we have better picture of where we'll be going with 
mozilla.org support by IC.

Comment 9

[Dawn Endico]

this is a bad idea. marking wontfix.

Comment 10

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

Dawn, lots fo people on .general thought, this (or bug 65451 ior something
similar) is a good idea. Please be at least more verbose. REOPENing.

Comment 11

[Andreas Franke (gone)]

Also note that there are different opinions on whether this mechanism should
only be applied to a few "artificial" newsgroups like mozilla.bugs.* which do
not exist yet, or to some other newsgroups, too.
Ben: I hope that it's not controversial that this mechanism, if applied at all,
should be applied to one or a few newsgroups first, and only extended to other
newsgroups if it seems to "work" and its assets seem to outweigh its drawbacks,
_and_ there are reasons to expect similar benefits with "ordinary" newsgroups.
For this reason I suggest this bug to be about the (hopefully least
controversial) "first stage" where this mechanism is applied to the
mozilla.bugs.* newsgroups only, for now.

I think it's always a good idea to give a reason when marking an RFE wontfix.

Comment 12

[Dawn Endico]

1) as gerv mentioned, i believe the newsgroup reorg will address many of our
problems.

2) setting up a byzantine mechanism for posting to a newsgroup isn't going to
deter anyone from spamming normal groups. if anything it will make things
it worse because then there will be a lot of complaints about not being able
to post. No matter what you do there will be people who don't read directions.

Comment 13

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

> isn't going to deter anyone from spamming normal groups.

I disagree. If we were able to move a simple "not for Netscape users" (or IMO
better "developers only") message before posting, I guess, at least 50% of
OFFTOPIC posts would be avoided. Many people just look for "mail" in the
newsgroup names and post there. We will avoid these guys.

IMO, this was in incredible good idea. :-(

Comment 14

[Andreas Franke (gone)]

Attachment: quotes from http://www.landfield.com/faqs/usenet/moderated-ng-faq

Comment 15

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

Dawn, please read the attachment.

Another side-effect just came to me: This will completely avoid spam. I am
subscribed to a few Mozilla mailinglist (not many, maybe 5 or 7), and these are
the main source for spam in my mailbox. I'd be happy, if we could cut on that, too.