hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (11/12/85)
In Message <2040@umcp-cs.UUCP>, posted in net.news.group, mangoe@umcp-cs (Charley Wingate) writes: >The following statistics were derived from seismo's top 25 groups numbers: [this list is pared down a bit here and emphasis is added by me] > Group Avg. rank by > Article Size Tot. Traffic >--------------------------------------------- >net.sources.games 22.7 10 >net.sources.mac 14.4 1 *** >net.sources 6.2 2 >net.micro.mac 1.4 4 *** >net.micro.atari 1.2 13 >net.micro.pc 1.1 19 >net.lang.c 1.1 20 >net.unix-wizards 0.8 17 >net.unix 0.8 25 > >One thing that should be evident is that the ~.sources groups have become a >primary service of the net. A major cost of the system is distributing >software for Macs and for games. Notice also how far down the list the >other "technical" groups appear. The ranking of net.*.mac groups is the major reason many of the backbone site administrators are considering dropping these groups. This decision can still be prevented, or at least held to making the sources group a moderated one. Voice your opinion in net.news.group! There has been some defense of the mac groups there, but also a lot of complaints. I for one don't want to see these groups made less useful! -- Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan Working is not a synonym for Quality.
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) (11/18/85)
As a proud new owner of a 68000 based micro, I too would not like to see
net.*.mac disappear. What I would like to see though is more postings on
net.sources.mac which are exactly that - SOURCE files.
There has been talk on net.micro.amiga of trying to start up a net.source.amiga.
It has alternately been proposed to try and create a net.source.??? which
could encompass the amiga, the atari and the mac. Granted, this would increase
the amount of articles posted to this single group but it would, most probably,
reduce the overall flow of trafic on the net. Furthermore, setting the group up
as a moderated one would allow fo archiving as well as reducing redundant
postings.
So, what do you think ???
the never-present whisper spirit
Joel Rives
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!"
<< Buckaroo Banzai >>breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) (11/20/85)
> >The following statistics were derived from seismo's top 25 groups numbers: > > Group Avg. rank by > > Article Size Tot. Traffic > >net.sources.mac 14.4 1 *** > >net.sources 6.2 2 > >net.micro.mac 1.4 4 *** > > > The ranking of net.*.mac groups is the major reason many of the backbone > site administrators are considering dropping these groups. This decision This is silly. On our site, net.news.group ranks first, by total traffic and, even, by traffic corrected for crosspostings. Furthermore, net.sources.mac and net.micro.mac account for only a small fraction of total net traffic. These newsgroups are certainly the wrong place to start pruning. Start deleting net.music, net.flame, &c if you MUST start somewhere. Thomas. PS: rst@tardis has recently posted pretty complete statistics on usenet traffic. I don't know how seismo's numbers came about, but they are irreconcilable with net traffic on Harvard machines. I know that rst's numbers are accurate and recent, so...