| |
Main
Date: 27 Sep 2006 17:42:56
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Newsgroup size - does it matter?
|
Newsgroup size is the single most important thing you can know about a
newsgroup. By size, I do not mean the number of posts or even the number of
members, but rather the number of members who regularly post to the group.
AB and RBM are large groups, but they are not huge. Furthermore, they appear
larger than they really are because there are so many members on those two
groups who post disproportionately. So what is a huge group? URC is a huge
group as there are very many members who post to it, not just a few. You can
no more make an impression on that group than you can on the ocean by adding
a few drops to it. We should prefer such a large group since it ensures that
there will always be some interesting threads available for the reader.
ARBR and RBS are very small groups. This is a disaster because such small
groups are always in danger of going out of business altogether. It is also
means that a few members can easily dominate the group. This is not a good
thing, but there are just so many folks who do not like to post to a small
group. I have never wanted to dominate any group, large or small.
I have been accused of being a troll mainly because I am posting to multiple
groups and because I drag others' posts and threads to ARBR. But I do this
because ARBR is so small that it is in danger of ceasing to exist. I hope I
will be able to forego the multiple posting in the near future as the group
recovers from the criminal vandal troll that we were infested with a couple
of years ago. Both ARBR and RBS are in sad shape due to their smallness.
A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS will
never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Sep 2006 17:18:06
From: Joshua Putnam
Subject: Re: Newsgroup size - does it matter?
|
In article <prqdnWHx4IzvY4fYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com >,
edolan@iw.net says...
> Newsgroup size is the single most important thing you can know about a
> newsgroup. By size, I do not mean the number of posts or even the number of
> members, but rather the number of members who regularly post to the group.
> ....
> A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS will
> never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
> Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!
Heaven forbid anyone would consider whether the posts in a group were
*relevant* to the group!
Your one-man crusade to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio is having its
effect, arbr is getting less useful by the day.
--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html >
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 18:12:46
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Newsgroup size - does it matter?
|
"Joshua Putnam" <josh@phred.org > wrote in message
news:MPG.1f86061a1f568a2e9896ac@news.zhonka.net...
[newsgroups restored]
> In article <prqdnWHx4IzvY4fYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com>,
> edolan@iw.net says...
>> Newsgroup size is the single most important thing you can know about a
>> newsgroup. By size, I do not mean the number of posts or even the number
>> of
>> members, but rather the number of members who regularly post to the
>> group.
>> ....
>> A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS
>> will
>> never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
>> Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!
>
> Heaven forbid anyone would consider whether the posts in a group were
> *relevant* to the group!
>
> Your one-man crusade to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio is having its
> effect, arbr is getting less useful by the day.
I shall press on a like the good soldier that I am. ARBR and RBS are worth
saving. There is no need to worry about the other cycling groups as they are
large enough to survive just about anything, even a troll like Ed Gin.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 05:22:35
From: Boostland
Subject: Re: Newsgroup size - does it matter?
|
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:prqdnWHx4IzvY4fYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
> Newsgroup size is the single most important thing you can know about a
> newsgroup. By size, I do not mean the number of posts or even the number
> of members, but rather the number of members who regularly post to the
> group.
>
> AB and RBM are large groups, but they are not huge. Furthermore, they
> appear larger than they really are because there are so many members on
> those two groups who post disproportionately. So what is a huge group? URC
> is a huge group as there are very many members who post to it, not just a
> few. You can no more make an impression on that group than you can on the
> ocean by adding a few drops to it. We should prefer such a large group
> since it ensures that there will always be some interesting threads
> available for the reader.
>
> ARBR and RBS are very small groups. This is a disaster because such small
> groups are always in danger of going out of business altogether. It is
> also means that a few members can easily dominate the group. This is not a
> good thing, but there are just so many folks who do not like to post to a
> small group. I have never wanted to dominate any group, large or small.
>
> I have been accused of being a troll mainly because I am posting to
> multiple groups and because I drag others' posts and threads to ARBR. But
> I do this because ARBR is so small that it is in danger of ceasing to
> exist. I hope I will be able to forego the multiple posting in the near
> future as the group recovers from the criminal vandal troll that we were
> infested with a couple of years ago. Both ARBR and RBS are in sad shape
> due to their smallness.
>
> A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS
> will never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
> Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
It's not the size of the newsgroup that matters, it's how you use it.
I have heard that three inches is enough, one in one out and one in and out.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 18:07:11
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Newsgroup size - does it matter?
|
"Boostland" <Boostland@kooragangcycling.asn.au > wrote in message
news:451c20e7$0$4670$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:prqdnWHx4IzvY4fYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>> Newsgroup size is the single most important thing you can know about a
>> newsgroup. By size, I do not mean the number of posts or even the number
>> of members, but rather the number of members who regularly post to the
>> group.
>>
>> AB and RBM are large groups, but they are not huge. Furthermore, they
>> appear larger than they really are because there are so many members on
>> those two groups who post disproportionately. So what is a huge group?
>> URC is a huge group as there are very many members who post to it, not
>> just a few. You can no more make an impression on that group than you can
>> on the ocean by adding a few drops to it. We should prefer such a large
>> group since it ensures that there will always be some interesting threads
>> available for the reader.
>>
>> ARBR and RBS are very small groups. This is a disaster because such small
>> groups are always in danger of going out of business altogether. It is
>> also means that a few members can easily dominate the group. This is not
>> a good thing, but there are just so many folks who do not like to post to
>> a small group. I have never wanted to dominate any group, large or small.
>>
>> I have been accused of being a troll mainly because I am posting to
>> multiple groups and because I drag others' posts and threads to ARBR. But
>> I do this because ARBR is so small that it is in danger of ceasing to
>> exist. I hope I will be able to forego the multiple posting in the near
>> future as the group recovers from the criminal vandal troll that we were
>> infested with a couple of years ago. Both ARBR and RBS are in sad shape
>> due to their smallness.
>>
>> A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS
>> will never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby
>> newsgroups. Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!
>
> It's not the size of the newsgroup that matters, it's how you use it.
[...]
Nope, I am convinced that size is the one thing that matters the most. A
newsgroup with few members is doomed. It is just a matter of time.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 28 Sep 2006 11:04:03
From: JimmyMac
Subject: Re: Newsgroup size - does it matter?
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> Newsgroup size is the single most important thing you can know about a
> newsgroup. By size, I do not mean the number of posts or even the number of
> members, but rather the number of members who regularly post to the group.
>
> AB and RBM are large groups, but they are not huge. Furthermore, they appear
> larger than they really are because there are so many members on those two
> groups who post disproportionately. So what is a huge group? URC is a huge
> group as there are very many members who post to it, not just a few. You can
> no more make an impression on that group than you can on the ocean by adding
> a few drops to it. We should prefer such a large group since it ensures that
> there will always be some interesting threads available for the reader.
>
> ARBR and RBS are very small groups. This is a disaster because such small
> groups are always in danger of going out of business altogether. It is also
> means that a few members can easily dominate the group.
A point well taken.
> This is not a good thing,
So ... LEAVE!!!
> but there are just so many folks who do not like to post to a small
> group. I have never wanted to dominate any group, large or small.
Total BULLSHITt!!!
> I have been accused of being a troll mainly because I am posting to multiple
> groups and because I drag others' posts and threads to ARBR.
You have been accused of being a troll simply becuase you precisely fit
the definition of a TROLL!!!
> But I do this
> because ARBR is so small that it is in danger of ceasing to exist.
Rationalization ... nothing more ... nothing less.
> I hope I
> will be able to forego the multiple posting in the near future as the group
> recovers from the criminal vandal troll that we were infested with a couple
> of years ago. Both ARBR and RBS are in sad shape due to their smallness.
They are in bad shape because you are here.
> A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS will
> never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
> Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!
IN your own words...
"I frankly do not have the slightest idea what newsgroups are all
about."
"Usenet is strictly for idiots, assholes and jerks - positively no
exceptions! When I am on Usenet I try to be the biggest idiot, asshole
and jerk of them all. I set the standard for one and all. I believe I
can state with absolute assurance that I am the Greatest Idiot, the
Greatest Asshole and the Greatest Jerk that Usenet has ever known in
its' long and dishonored history. For Christ's sakes, I prove it every
time I post. Can't any of you poor bastards read?"
"I am merely a gadfly buzzing about this group ever striving to create
some mayhem. I am superfluous. Think of me as the buffoon of ARBR and
you will not be far wrong."
"All I ever want to do is to defeat and humiliate you, but how can I do
that if you refuse to post your idiotic messages. Please show some
consideration for the Great Ed Dolan and post to these cycling
newsgroups."
Your reputation precedes you and your own words betray your
credibility. Who cares what you think.
Jim McNaa
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2006 19:04:50
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Newsgroup size - does it matter?
|
Artoi wrote:
> In article <prqdnWHx4IzvY4fYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com>,
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>
> > A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS will
> > never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
> > Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!
>
> It's too late isn't it? Just a simple survival of the fittest amongst
> all the 60+k newsgroups that ever existed. And the format of usenet has
> long been determined, and realistically, it's shaped by the
> participants. If you can shape it, great. If you can't, bad luck. No?
Well, many of the former participants of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
decided they preferred to post to a web forum where the moderators play
"net nanny" by warning people when they drift away from what is
"approved", locking threads and deleting posts.
If ya can't stand the heat...
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 28 Sep 2006 08:22:36
From: bill
Subject: Re: Newsgroup size - does it matter?
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Artoi wrote:
>> In article <prqdnWHx4IzvY4fYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com>,
>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS will
>>> never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
>>> Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!
>> It's too late isn't it? Just a simple survival of the fittest amongst
>> all the 60+k newsgroups that ever existed. And the format of usenet has
>> long been determined, and realistically, it's shaped by the
>> participants. If you can shape it, great. If you can't, bad luck. No?
>
> Well, many of the former participants of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> decided they preferred to post to a web forum where the moderators play
> "net nanny" by warning people when they drift away from what is
> "approved", locking threads and deleting posts.
>
> If ya can't stand the heat...
>
There are actually over 100K newsgroups, or so I have heard, but many
are totally dead. I tried to get on some special programming groups,
including an old DOS one, and though I was able to subscribe, nothing
came up. It seems that there is nobody looking to clean out the
leftovers. The one thing that pissed me off is the ridiculous abundance
of .erotica.something strange groups which have millions of articles
listed. I can't get alt.binaries.pictures.rail on my server for the old
steam engine Jpegs I collect but man, can I get the porn, all unwanted.
Sbc used to carry some good binary program groups too, but cut them out
for fear of being sued, yet still has all the porn groups.
Go figure.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 28 Sep 2006 00:55:53
From: Artoi
Subject: Re: Newsgroup size - does it matter?
|
In article <prqdnWHx4IzvY4fYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@prairiewave.com >,
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote:
> A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS will
> never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
> Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!
It's too late isn't it? Just a simple survival of the fittest amongst
all the 60+k newsgroups that ever existed. And the format of usenet has
long been determined, and realistically, it's shaped by the
participants. If you can shape it, great. If you can't, bad luck. No?
--
|
|
