brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/12/89)
As you know, earlier this week I announced an experiment I am undertaking concerning the expansion of rec.humor.funny to commercial networks. The full text of that announcement can be found in rec.humor.funny. After about 4 days of voting, here are the results: Yes: Four hundred and twenty No: Twenty-eight (About 5 people sent in responses that my awk program didn't like. About 70 people responded to looking!funny rather than fsurvey -- their software must ignore the Reply-to: line. About 4 responses were duplicates, but with this margin, I hope you'll forgive me for not taking the time to weed them out. My software was smart enough to weed out the people who put "survey yes" in 100 times or "survey no" twice. I don't know if I've ever seen a usenet vote or survey this positive before. Especially not 400 yes votes in 3 days. Further responses will not count. (Now that I have revealed the result, it would reduce the validity of the survey.) Sometimes a very vocal, but extremely tiny minority can make people think that the respresent popular opinion on some way. I am pleased to present overwhelming evidence that this is not the case. It's just standard net flamage, it seems. (Matt Crawford I don't understand, though. He regularly sends abusive notes of complaint on rec.humor.funny. I have told him that we must simply agree to disagree, and asked him why he insists on reading the group if it bothers so much. I guess he could make a good newsgroup moderator because he obviously has a lot of free time! 8-) ) And Karl Denninger, please stop lying about my intentions or I'll hire Jonathan Richmond to sue you. 8-) I will now negotiate and sign contracts with Genie and Delphi. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) (03/15/89)
In article <2914@looking.UUCP> funny-request@looking.UUCP writes: >After about 4 days of voting, here are the results: > Yes: Four hundred and twenty > No: Twenty-eight >I don't know if I've ever seen a usenet vote or survey this positive before. Oh come on, Brad. Please admit that most of these votes came from the rec.humor.funny readership, which consists mostly of people that fell out on your side after the polarization of the net about the JEDR debate. >Sometimes a very vocal, but extremely tiny minority can make people >think that the respresent popular opinion on some way. 420 people is a majority of the net? Questions like this one should not be decided by opinion polls of the entire net readership, but by reasoned and fair debate (ie. not on the net at all!) by people who know a lot about the consequences of it (ie. not me). It's too important for a straw poll, newsgroup-skewed or otherwise. I don't really know why I'm posting this, I guess it's just that I'm getting tired of Brad's getting away with all this on the strength of his popular support ("yea Brad, we will fight to the death for your right to send us any jokes we want to read") over the JEDR thing. Maybe I'm just jealous, or depressed, that Brad's carefully calculated posting style (simplistic arguments, short sentences, 1000-word vocabulary) can have such an effect. I dunno. Anyway, send in the flames, I'll probably ignore them since unfortunately I'm caring less and less about the net these days. >I will now negotiate and sign contracts with Genie and Delphi. --Jamie. jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk "Same eyes, same lips, the same lie from your tongue slips"
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (03/16/89)
jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) writes:
Oh come on, Brad. Please admit that most of these votes
came from the rec.humor.funny readership...
Considering that the readership/postership of r.h.f is exactly the set
of people with whom lies the significance of any policy regarding
re-posting on Genie/Delphi/wherever, it seems to me that he picked his
sample population quite well.
--Karlchuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/16/89)
> Oh come on, Brad. Please admit that most of these votes >came from the rec.humor.funny readership, which consists mostly >of people that fell out on your side after the polarization of >the net about the JEDR debate. You're making a wild accusation here: that the people who read r.h.f are the people who agree with Brad. That's a nasty generalization, and there's absolutely no evidence for it. And I'll bet you could disprove the "fell out" statement by looking at readership levels in the arbitron stats. I don't believe there's been a significant drop-off in r.h.f readership at all -- and unless there *has* been, you're statement's been blown out of the water. > 420 people is a majority of the net? No. But 420 responses is an exceptionally large number of responses to an opinion survey on the net. If you consider it against the average number of responses a survey gets, it *is* a significant number of people. > Questions like this one should not be decided by opinion >polls of the entire net readership, but by reasoned and fair >debate (ie. not on the net at all!) by people who know a lot >about the consequences of it (ie. not me). This is impossible on USENET. USENET won't allow a reasoned and fair debate. And if a group of people tried to go off and do it anyway, they'd get screamed at for being fascist. Just ask the backbone cabal.
beres@cadnetix.COM (Tim Beres) (03/17/89)
In article <1581@etive.ed.ac.uk> jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) writes: >In article <2914@looking.UUCP> funny-request@looking.UUCP writes: >>After about 4 days of voting, here are the results: > > 420 people is a majority of the net? > Statistically valid, perhaps. Getting the entire net to vote on something would be impossible and a waste of bandwidth. > Questions like this one should not be decided by opinion >polls of the entire net readership, but by reasoned and fair >debate (ie. not on the net at all!) by people who know a lot >about the consequences of it (ie. not me). It's too important >for a straw poll, newsgroup-skewed or otherwise. Oh go read up on what usenet is: An anarchy. The net is administered by "people who know a lot about the consequences", but it is not their domain - we the net people, with netiquette and opinions for all control the net, if indeed control is a justifiable word. Yes we should listen to the net gods, but where are they now? It is just you and me and umpteen thousands of others reasonably debating these things. I agree that Brad should have cross-posted the vote mechanism to news.groups (maybe he did announce that the poll would be taking place in RHF in this group, I don't know). The bottom line, however, is that a substantial majority of that groups readership support him. RHF is heavily read, not by Karl and Matt, but by many, many others. Shit, they don't care that he will make some dough by cross-posting THOSE JOKES that submitters allow to be gatewayed. With prodding (HEY, BRAD! GET US SOME JOKES FROM OTHER NETS), it might even improve RHF. > Maybe I'm just jealous, or depressed, that Brad's carefully >calculated posting style (simplistic arguments, short sentences, >1000-word vocabulary) can have such an effect. I dunno. > > Anyway, send in the flames, I'll probably ignore them since >unfortunately I'm caring less and less about the net these days. Bummer. You do sound depressed. For those that don't like what Brad is doing, here is what I suggest. Attempt to create an alt.humor.whatever group, moderated. Get it popular. Run it the way YOU and your READERSHIP wants. When it gets popular, try to get it moved to rec.humor.freebies. If you are in the right in this argument, your readership will increase RHF will decline and we can make Brad walk the comedic gang plank. For now, though, RHF likes what it gets, doesn't mind Brad the Capitalist making money by improving (my opinion) the group and have said so. Tim (let no Brad rend asunder what the net police will blatantly plunder - just a rhyme, folks) ------>MY SOAPBOX (I speak for myself) "Any accord based on Ortega's promises is like trying to leash a dog with sausages" - Adolfo Calero Tim Beres beres@cadnetix.com {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres
cc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (It glows in the dark) (03/17/89)
In article <KARL.89Mar15171139@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: ^jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) writes: ^ Oh come on, Brad. Please admit that most of these votes ^ came from the rec.humor.funny readership... ^Considering that the readership/postership of r.h.f is exactly the set ^of people with whom lies the significance of any policy regarding ^re-posting on Genie/Delphi/wherever, it seems to me that he picked his ^sample population quite well. But what about the people who have to SEND all these jokes across the net to Brad so that he can make money off of it? Why not voting in news.admin? (Of course, since the number of rec.humor.funny readers undoubtedly outnumbers the number of news administrators, the newsadmins would lose out every time if a vote is taken--however, they DO have the power to drop r.h.f...) --Ken
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (03/18/89)
cc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (It glows in the dark) writes:
But what about the people who have to SEND all these jokes across the
net to Brad so that he can make money off of it?
There's a positively ridiculous amount of traffic passing through my
systems by which a lot of people are already making money. One more
is of no consequence whatever. All the already-extant pay-per-hour
services do so, after all.
the newsadmins would
lose out every time if a vote is taken--however, they DO have the
power to drop r.h.f...
This past Monday, I sent mail to what was once the `backbone,' asking
for opinion of the whole affair, for related reasons of my own. I got
a positively stunning amount of raw, unadorned apathy - high quality,
grade A, first order apathy. Comments such as, "I don't give a $#!+
what Brad does, as long as he keeps up the good work" and "Connect to
anyone" were indicative of the sentiment.
--Karlchip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (03/18/89)
According to karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste): >Considering that the readership/postership of r.h.f is exactly the set >of people with whom lies the significance of any policy regarding >re-posting on Genie/Delphi/wherever [..] Karl misses an important point here. The sale of Usenet material by its moderator is a concern of mine, not because I read or post to r.h.f, but because I'm a news administrator on a system that carries it. (For now, anyway.) Cross-posting the survey request to news.admin would have been appropriate. -- Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! "It's no good. They're tapping the lines."
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (03/18/89)
In article <KARL.89Mar17113127@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: |This past Monday, I sent mail to what was once the `backbone,' asking |for opinion of the whole affair, for related reasons of my own. I got |a positively stunning amount of raw, unadorned apathy - high quality, |grade A, first order apathy. This echoes the very same feelings that are coursing madly through my veins when I think about this issue (please pardon metaphor mixing). /JBL = UUCP: {backbone}!bbn!levin POTS: (617) 873-3463 INTERNET: levin@bbn.com
nagel@blanche.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) (03/18/89)
In article <1989Mar17.121620.13318@ateng.ateng.com>, chip@ateng (Chip Salzenberg) writes: | |Karl misses an important point here. The sale of Usenet material by its |moderator is a concern of mine, not because I read or post to r.h.f, but |because I'm a news administrator on a system that carries it. (For now, |anyway.) Cross-posting the survey request to news.admin would have been |appropriate. Chip misses an important point here. The moderator is not selling Usenet material to anyone. He is selling his moderation. If GEnie is stupid enough to want to pay for what it could just take for free, then they can do that. Mark Nagel @ UC Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science +----------------------------------------+ ARPA: nagel@ics.uci.edu | radiation: smog with an attitude | UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!nagel | |