Re: A solution to *.answers content moderation

---------

era eriksson (reriksso@cc.helsinki.fi)
Tue, 13 Aug 1996 16:40:11 +0300

On Tue, 13 Aug 96 08:19:46 -0400,
faqmail@paleo.greensboro.fl.us (Edward Reid) wrote:
>> Having unreliable "approved" FAQ:s floating
>> around would quickly lose the appeal of the approval stamp, IMHO.
> Well, yes. That was exactly the point of the posting that initiated
> this thread. The question is how to decrease the frequency with which
> that situation occurs.

What I was getting at was that the proposed solution needs to cater
with the situation where an "approved" (by the proposed new
definition) FAQ is/becomes rogue or just orphaned. You should really
have yet some other mechanism whereby the approval is cancelled in
this situation, because otherwise the new approval mechanism isn't
really better than what we have already.

/* era */

-- 
See <http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~reriksso/> for mantra, disclaimer, etc.
* If you enjoy getting spam, I'd appreciate it if you'd register yourself
  at the following URL:  <http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~reriksso/spam.html>

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]

---------

faq-admin@landfield.com

© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved