roy@ALANINE.PHRI.NYU.EDU (Roy Smith) (03/21/90)
Eliot just told me that he now has well over 600 responses from sites since sending out his sendsys message just last night I'm impressed! I've also noticed over the past few months rather a bit more activity on the groups; scientists actually asking science-type questions and getting science-type answers. It used to be just people talking about the groups, not actually using them. What I would be more interested in, though, is how many people actually read them, instead of how many computers receive them. I havn't been paying much attention to Brian Reid's arbitron polls. Do they cover the bionet groups? If so, you might get your answer from there. One problem with arbitron is that people who read news via NNTP clients like rrn (i.e. most of the people around here) don't get counted. BTW, what's the difference between the bionet groups and biosci? Is the latter just your generic name for the union of the usenet, bboard, and mailing list distributions? Any guess as to the relative sizes of those?
kristoff@GENBANK.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson) (03/21/90)
> BTW, what's the difference between the bionet groups and biosci? Is the > latter just your generic name for the union of the usenet, bboard, and > mailing list distributions? Any guess as to the relative sizes of those? > > The bionet.* groups were set up prior to our merger with the European sites to form BIOSCI. You can basically look at them as simply the USENET arm of BIOSCI. I haven't totaled up all of our local e-mail lists lately (these vary greatly in size depending upon the group) but probably will do so fairly soon since I'm going to give a talk about this stuff. Several new e-mail subscription requests come in here each day and I'm sure the situation is similar for our colleagues in Europe. Dave