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 Unamuno
karish@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."