pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (04/10/89)
A little over two weeks ago, I set up a little survey of some of the
low-traffic Usenet groups. I sent mail to the moderators of 9
moderated low-traffic groups, and posted queries to 12 unmoderated
ones. The mail to the moderators looked like this:
To: <mailinglist>-request
Subject: Is <mailinglist> dead?
Hi. Your mailing list, <mailinglist>, is gatewayed to the Usenet
newsgroup <newsgroup>. There has been no activity in the newsgroup
for quite a while. This leads me to suspect that either the gateway
is broken or the mailing list is dead. Any clues?
The postings to the unmoderated groups looked like this:
Subject: Is <newsgroup> dead?
This newsgroup has not has any traffic in quite a while. Is it dead?
Should we give it a decent burial?
First let's take a look at the numerical results. I saved all the
relevant messages from all the groups in question for the two week
period. This includes email to me, postings to the newsgroup, and
for unmoderated groups, postings following up my query.
Moderated net-wide groups:
comp.graphics.digest (info-graphics@ads.com)
email: 0
real postings: 0
comp.laser-printers (laser-lovers@brillig.umd.edu)
email: 0
real postings: 0
comp.protocols.kermit (info-kermit@cu20b.columbia.edu)
email: 0
real postings: 1
Note, however, that the moderator of info-kermit did NOT ignore my
message. Instead, he added me to his mailing list!
comp.std.mumps (std-mumps@plus5.com)
email: 1
real postings: 1
Email from the moderator saying that the list isn't dead, there's just
a temporary lack of traffic. Plus a real posting from the moderator.
comp.sys.m68k.pc (info-68k@ucbvax.berkeley.edu)
email: 1
real postings: 0
Email from the moderator saying that the list isn't dead, that there's
plenty of traffic on it. Since I don't see any of it, either the gateway
for this one is broken or the distribution is partitioned.
comp.sys.workstations (works@rutgers.edu)
email: 0
real postings: 0
comp.theory.info-retrieval (fox@vtopus.cs.vt.edu)
email: 0
real postings: 0
My mail to fox-request bounced after a few days -- host unreachable.
The host remains down as of this writing.
soc.human-nets (human-nets@red.rutgers.edu)
email: 1
real postings: 0
Email from the moderator saying that the list isn't dead, there's just
a temporary lack of traffic.
Moderated inet-only groups:
comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway (post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov)
email: 1
real postings: 1
Email from the moderator saying that the list isn't dead, there's just
a temporary lack of traffic. Plus a real posting from someone other
than the moderator.
Unmoderated net-wide groups:
comp.mail.headers
email: 3
followup postings: 3
real postings: 1
One rude email response from Leonard D Woren <LDW@MVSA.USC.EDU>. One
email message saying that the mailing list this group gateways to has
plenty of traffic, so perhaps the gateway is broken.
comp.sys.celerity
email: 0
followup postings: 1
real postings: 1
The followup posting noted that Celerity was bought out by FPS a while
back. That might explain the lack of interest. Still, orphan computers
need love too.
Unmoderated inet-only groups:
comp.dcom.lans.hyperchannel
email: 0
followup postings: 2
real postings: 0
Two postings claiming that they could post lots of stuff, but don't.
comp.edu.composition
email: 0
followup postings: 2
real postings: 0
One posting asking what the group is for; another saying that it is
indeed dead and should be removed.
comp.lang.forth.mac
email: 0
followup postings: 6
real postings: 3
comp.os.v
email: 0
followup postings: 0
real postings: 4
Four real postings, no meta-noise. A healthy group!
comp.unix.cray
email: 0
followup postings: 9
real postings: 13
comp.dcom.lans.v2lni
email: 1
followup postings: 3
real postings: 0
comp.lang.idl
email: 1
followup postings: 1
real postings: 0
The folloup posting was partially to promote the poster's upcoming book
on IDL. Nothing wrong with that, and it may indeed increase traffic
when it comes out.
comp.mail.multi-media
email: 2
followup postings: 7
real postings: 7
comp.protocols.pcnet
email: 3
followup postings: 2
real postings: 0
One of the email messages was from the maintainer of the gatewayed
mailing list, saying he is considering removing the list. One of
the followup postings was empty. The other followup posting talked
about some IBM-PC product called PCNET, totally unrelated to the
actual subject of the group.
comp.sys.cdc
email: 2 (one rude, from Drew Sullivan <drew@lethe.uucp>)
followup postings: 13
real postings: 48
This group has definitely taken off.
So, what can we tell from these numbers? First of all, for the
moderated groups I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the
moderator. Even in the case of human-nets, which as Evelyn Leeper
points out has not has any postings in almost two years. The moderator
of human-nets claims that the group will be revived soon -- maybe so,
maybe not, but at least he answers his mail.
The same cannot be said for the moderators of comp.graphics.digest,
comp.laser-printers, and comp.sys.workstations. Perhaps someone else
could attempt to wake them up? And comp.theory.info-retrieval is just
broken. If contact cannot be re-established with the moderators of
these groups, I recommend that they be removed. My previous suggestion
that defunct moderated groups be changed to unmoderated turns out to
have a problem: due to Usenet's poor design, a group that is moderated
on some hosts and unmoderated on others can cause mounds of mail to be
sent to the moderator. Even someone who doesn't answer his mail
doesn't deserve this. So, remove the groups. If there is interest
(highly doubtful but possible), new unmoderated groups can be created,
with different names, through the usual process.
As for the unmoderated groups: some are healthy, some are borderline, but
three are obviously dead: comp.edu.composition, comp.dcom.lans.v2lni, and
comp.protocols.pcnet. These groups should be removed. No voting is
necessary or desireable.
Summary:
Possible gateway problems:
comp.sys.m68k.pc
comp.mail.headers
Definite problems, attempt contact and remove if nothing happens:
comp.graphics.digest
comp.laser-printers
comp.sys.workstations
comp.theory.info-retrieval
Remove:
comp.edu.composition
comp.dcom.lans.v2lni
comp.protocols.pcnet
You're welcome.
---
Jef
Jef Poskanzer jef@helios.ee.lbl.gov ...well!pokey
"Science is a cemetery of dead ideas, even though life may issue from them."
-- Miguel de Unamunokarish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) (04/11/89)
In article <11291@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@helios.ee.lbl.gov> wrote: >A little over two weeks ago, I set up a little survey of some of the >low-traffic Usenet groups... >First let's take a look at the numerical results. I saved all the >relevant messages from all the groups in question for the two week >period. This includes email to me, postings to the newsgroup, and >for unmoderated groups, postings following up my query. Some of the groups you chose to study are worthwhile because their content is valuable, not because their volume is overwhelming. The omes I have in mind are comp.laser-printers and comp.protocols.kermit. If these weren't newsgroups, I'd have to be on both mailing lists, which would be a pain for the moderators, because I'm hardly alone in needing this information. Unless someone can demonstrate that low-volume newsgroups waste more resources than I think they do (next to none), I'll refrain from deleting them, and will advise others to do the same. Two weeks is a ridiculously short baseline for a survey, anyway. There was a digest posted to the laser printers group not long before this period. Chuck Karish hplabs!hpda!mindcrf!karish (415) 493-7277 karish@forel.stanford.edu
jef@surf.ee.lbl.gov (Jef Poskanzer) (04/12/89)
In the referenced message, karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) wrote: }Two weeks is a ridiculously short baseline for a survey, }anyway. There was a digest posted to the laser printers group }not long before this period. Actually, I chose the groups to tweak on the basis of my previous survey, reported in article <2094@helios.ee.lbl.gov>, posted on the 13th of March. In that survey I reported the list of groups that had no articles in my spool directory. We keep those newsgroups for 21 days, so now we are back to the 20th of February. Almost two MONTHS, not two weeks. If there was an article posted to comp.laser-printers during this time, then the distribution must be broken because it didn't get here. In any case, comp.laser-printers was not in my "remove" category, but in my "definite problems, attempt contact and remove if nothing happens" category. It is not acceptable for a moderator to go for months without posting anything and to ignore email asking what is up. One or the other is ok -- not particularly nice, but ok. Both together means the group should be removed. So, would you, Chuck Karish, like to attempt contact with the moderator of comp.laser-printers? I have done my part. I have attepted contact, and I have been ignored. Now it's someone else's turn. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@helios.ee.lbl.gov ...well!pokey "If all else fails, try sucking it out."