gsmith@brahms.UUCP (05/19/86)
In article <3709@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP writes: >It can very easily be proven that more people get more demonstable use from >net.micro.mac than the people punching it out in net.religion get from their >group. Why, then should people try to keep around a useless group and >kill off something useful in its place? OK, if it can "easily be proven", then prove it. You could get torn to shreds over in net.philosophy for saying stuff like this. That is why net.philosophy is useful. On the other hand, I can easily "prove" that net.sf-lovers and mod.mag.otherrealms are useless parasites, and should be eliminated. Care to show I am wrong? Can you or anyone define "soapbox group" in a way which makes sense? ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!weyl!gsmith "DUMB problem!! DUMB!!!" -- Robert L. Forward
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (05/20/86)
> Can you or anyone define "soapbox group" in a way which makes sense?
Not with complete precision, no. There is no doubt that at least some
personal judgments will enter into it. To expect a total absence of bias
in a group of humans is to expect the impossible. However, the working
definition of a soapbox group is one which has a relatively high cost
per reader, a high volume overall, a relatively high posters-to-readers
ratio, and does not contain work-related information for most net sites. The
stereotypical soapbox group would consist of a few people posting
multi-hundred-line flames to each other (which should be sent by mail if at
all). The now-mostly-defunct net.flame was a textbook example. Most of the
current "soapbox" groups do not look as "bad" as net.flame in this regard, but
the above-mentioned ratios generally hold true for them, and (and this is the
part that is more judgment than fact) they seem to be mostly made up of
people stating their opinions and beliefs as though they were facts,
typically accompanied by disparaging remarks about those who do not agree
with them. Admittedly, some of the groups classified as soapbox fit this
description more than others. When in doubt, the mathematical ratios
can be used. You can either use Brian Reid's arbitron data or check out
the articles on your own system. The hardest data to obtain accurately is,
of course, the number of readers, and this is where the most guess-timation
is going on. The volume and number of posters can be fairly accurately
obtained by checking the articles at any "reliable" net site (i.e. one that
eventually gets most of the articles posted).
--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo}
!hao!woods
CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
"The darkness never goes, from some men's eyes"