[net.news.group] More Funny Numbers

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/08/85)

>	The large volume of net.*.mac should show how valuable these groups
>are to a relatively large part of the net.  I don't think that an 
>insignificant number of people could generate this many postings to 
>net.*.mac.

You'ld be suprised.  The following chart gives an example of what happens
when you subtract the Top 25 Users from the Top 25 Groups.  These numbers
are derived from seismo's stats, and thus ignore contribution of less
than 5% to a group.

       Old   No. of  %Chg.  
 Rank  Rank  Kbytes in size  Group
   1     3   376.8   18.2%   net.politics
   2     1   352.9   59.8%   net.sources.mac
   3     5   303.6    4.6%   net.flame
   4     4   255.2   27.9%   net.micro.mac
   5     8   255.1    5.0%   net.music
   6     7   224.2   17.8%   net.movies
   7    12   220.9    0.0%   net.women
   8     2   220.8   36.0%   net.sources
   9    11   208.8    7.2%   net.sf-lovers
  10    13   207.5    5.3%   net.micro.atari
  11    17   194.3    6.7%   net.unix-wizards
  12    14   186.4   14.9%   net.religion
  13    18   174.0   11.8%   net.abortion
  14    19   169.7    4.6%   net.micro.pc
  15     9   168.1   36.7%   net.politics.theory
  16    20   164.5    6.0%   net.lang.c
  17    21   159.5    5.5%   net.micro
  18    15   150.8   30.3%   net.audio
  19    23   141.5    0.0%   net.singles
  20    24   133.1    4.4%   net.cooks
  21    22   132.0   12.5%   net.religion.christian
  22    25   124.6    7.7%   net.unix
  23    16   112.9   47.1%   net.origins
  24     6   106.2   62.4%   net.philosophy
  25    10    38.2   83.2%   net.sources.games

Let me draw your attention to a number of entries.  First, note that with
60% of its traffic removed, Net.sources.mac is STILL huge; in fact, it would
have placed 5th in the unmodified list!  A few people ARE generating that
much traffic.

Also, note how many of the large groups have relatively small changes;
this tends to indicate a lot of posters, and thus a high demand for the group.

What's really interesting, though, are the big droppers.  net.philosophy and
net.sources.games really stand out, followed by net.origins and
net.politics.theory.  Ignoring games sources for the moment, it think it's
fair to ask whether the other three should not become mailing lists.

Not that the changes in some of the groups would actually be greater if some
of the Top 25 posters went away, due to the "power of the point-by-point
reply" in including text and demanding postings.  Certainly net.philosophy,
for one, would decrease further.

Charley Wingate

drg@rlvd.UUCP (Duncan Gibson) (11/12/85)

I think that it would be interesting to find out what the average net user
actually does. I mean, is the average net.(has it gone yet?).bizarre poster
an undergraduate student who regards the net as a plaything? What are the
top 25 submitters, hardware designers, politicians, etc? Similarly, what sort
of reader subscribes to each group?

[Once I work out how to specify, and then verify my software, I may make the
metamorphosis into a Software Engineer (gasp :-) ]
-- 
UUCP: ..!ukc!rlvd![rlvc!]drg	ARPA: drg%rl.vc@ucl.cs	JANET:	drg@rl.vc