cfv@packet.UUCP (07/26/83)
I have to agree with the people who think that the stats are useless. I am
sure that some people (usually those that make the list) would be interested
in them, but most of us really don't care. It might even make a user or
site up their volume just to see if they could make the list (so much for
junk mail).
If you want to generate that stuff, great! If you want to distribute it,
wonderful! Just don't distribute it on news. Why not ask everyone who wants
a copy to please send you their address and mail it to them? Better yet,
pass around all of those neat sources and let those people who care generate
the statistics locally so that they relate to something like their reality?
--
>From the dungeons of the Warlock:
Chuck Von Rospach
ucbvax!amd70!packet!cfv
(chuqui@mit-mc) <- obsolete!alb@alice.UUCP (07/28/83)
People seem to complain after the fact. In this case, a sample set of statistics was posted to the net several weeks ago with requests for comments (to which I, for one, responded favorably) When it was apparent then that there was general approval of the stats, a mail discussion was held, with format and frequency debated. It was decided that the stats would be posted in their current format at intervals of two weeks; room, of course, was left for change to adapt to changing conditions. If you don't like the stats now, why didn't you complain then?
perelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (07/29/83)
Since this is becoming a public forum debate, I would like to say that I think
the usenet statistics are a positive element and should continue. Sure, the
absolute value in terms of the cosmic good of the Known Universe is low, but
the good relative to cost is pretty high. If you don't like them, don't read
them. The poster (sorry, forgot your name) always labels them clearly.
--
--- Stephen Perelgut ---
{decvax!utzoo,linus}!utcsrgv!perelgut
{cornell,watmath,floyd,allegra,uw-beaver,ubc-vision,ihnp4}!utcsrgv!perelgutrwhw@hound.UUCP (07/29/83)
Why not post the fact that certain stats are available and anyone that wants them should send a request to the author(s). -- Roy W. H. Walters (a.k.a. BTM)
stevel@ima.UUCP (07/30/83)
#R:packet:-32300:ima:17800003:000:714
ima!stevel Jul 29 10:09:00 1983
If you don't like the stats articles use the n key.
If it goes on a mailing list then newcomers to the net will never
know about it.
This is a problem to a whole class of news worthy stuff. It would
be great if some serious discussion took place to create a GOOD
solution like an policy class of article that hung around (if the
site told it to) and only disapeared when the update came along.
Then you would only have to look at it when it got updated. Those
who chose not to look at it would never see it again.
Steve Ludlum, INTERACTIVE, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238; 617-247-1155
decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {ihnp4|ucbvax}!cbosgd!ima!stevel,
decwrl!amd70!ima!stevel, {uscvax|ucla-vax|vortex}!ism780!steveltrb@floyd.UUCP (Andy Tannenbaum) (07/30/83)
Roy Walters (hound!rwhw, aka BTM) suggests: Why not post the fact that certain stats are available and anyone that wants them should send a request to the author(s). That would sort of negate the convenience of netnews, now, wouldn't it, Roy? I like to glance at the stats to make sure that I'm not on them, too see if there are any hot groups I'm ignoring, to see if any of my favorite flamers are active where I'm not looking, etc. I find the stats interesting, as stats go. I didn't think it was necessary to express that here, but now I see a few people shooting down the guy who made the effort to compile the stats and present them in a digestible form, and you're shooting him down. The stats are relevant to EVERYONE who receives netnews, though not all may find them interesting. Roy, I see you suggesting that this guy post a request for requests. I don't enjoy reading most of your netnews, but I don't have the gaul to suggest that you post notice of the availability of your opinions, so that people could request them. This other fellow isn't even posting opinions, he's posting facts (from the perspective of his netnews system, of course), which have, at least, intrinsic objective value, if not subjective value. The jury is still out on whether certain people's opinions have ANY value. So get off the guy's case. alice!alb already claimed in this space that he likes the stats, I like the stats. The guy who posted them likes them, and his mom probably does too. If we like them, knowing the nature of the shy folks on this medium, there are probably uncounted millions who like them. Better than nothing, Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
eric@seismo.UUCP (07/31/83)
The usenet usage statistics are infinitely more useful and interesting
than a lot of the junk on this network. That includes in particular all
the whining about having sent them out in the first place, and all the
whining about that whining (including this message itself). They ought
to throw away the key to the Warlock's dungeon with him in it.
* Eric Holstege Caltech, Pasadena, CA.
* eric@cit-vax {ucbvax!cithep,research}!citcsv!erichardie@sask.UUCP (Peter Hardie) (07/31/83)
Perhaps some sites and users would prefer the statistics were not generated so that their prolific, but almost useless contributions, were not summarized in such a damning way. I am amazed at the number of sites/users whose most numerous contributions are to such wonderfully useful groups as net.flame, net.philosophy etc. Site managers should have a close look at those stats!! Pete hardie (harpo!utah-cs!sask!hardie) flames -> net.flame (our site does not receive it)
tim@unc.UUCP (08/01/83)
Why not just distribute the programs that do the statistics once, and then anyone who wants them can run them as often as they like on their local /usr/spool/netnews? This would alleviate the problem of distribution to sites that are not interested. ______________________________________ The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney (#1, but trying to cut down) duke!unc!tim (USENET) tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill