"Nick Westgate" <nick.westg...@gmail.com> wrote: >D Finnigan <dog_...@macgui.com> wrote: >> (Note that I've posted to 3 groups, but follow-ups should go to >> csa2.comm) >Comm topics are regularly discussed in csa2.
So is everything including child abuse. Linux issues and MacIntosh issues seem to creep into here as well... and of course ebay auctions.
>These groups should really be RFD'd, or at least ignored: >comp.sys.apple2.comm >comp.sys.apple2.usergroups >comp.sys.apple2.gno
For RFD you can also add comp.sys.apple, comp.os.mac, alt.comp.os.mac, alt.sys.mac, comp.os.mac and many more if you wish.
>20-something subscribers for each in Google Groups, compared to >400-something for csa2.
I don't much care for google groups and prefer using Outlook Express as my news reader. It is entirely possible (but unlikely) that the type of person who likes to use google groups also doesn't like to bother with sub groups,,, but a more relevant point is that non-barney-googlers may also be subscribed to those RFD suggestions of yours so the numbers may be greater.
Also even alt.comp.cygwin sees no posts despite its newness and relevance so maybe usenet itself will eventually be an RFD target.
I then put it to you...
1. is it better to consolidate all posts into one general group or 2. keep things of a like kind in their own place or 3. will it matter in the end? 4. all of the above?
Bill
PS - If someone calls me a clown again for suggesting that the appropriate subgroups be used they will also be called a clown.
On Aug 29, 7:40 pm, "Bill Buckels" <bbuck...@mts.net> wrote:
> So is everything including child abuse. Linux issues and MacIntosh issues > seem to creep into here as well... and of course ebay auctions.
Yeah, the low traffic means we're pretty OT post tolerant here.
> For RFD you can also add comp.sys.apple, comp.os.mac, alt.comp.os.mac, > alt.sys.mac, comp.os.mac and many more if you wish.
Sure.
> a more relevant point is that non-barney-googlers may also be subscribed > to those RFD suggestions of yours so the numbers may be greater.
Probably, but since they don't post much (e.g. nothing this year except for the FAQs and spam) the Google headcount is the only measure I can see. When someone does post, only 20-something (plus unknown non- Googling non-responding) people see it, as opposed to at least 400- something Google users in csa2. Which is more likely to get a response? ;-)
> 1. is it better to consolidate all posts into one general group
I've been lurking in these apple newsgroups for 15 years (I used to use an A2+ to read news - now I'm strictly a linux guy) and I havn't posted anything for at least 10 years. But I still read them, and at least they have a dedicated and enthusiastic bunch of users!
Point being that not everyone is a google gremlin!!! and I just wanted to add a few words after all these years!
John
-- Just as sure as gravity holds me to the ground the Lord will lift me up! jf'96
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Nick Westgate wrote: > On Aug 29, 7:40 pm, "Bill Buckels" <bbuck...@mts.net> wrote: > > So is everything including child abuse. Linux issues and MacIntosh issues > > seem to creep into here as well... and of course ebay auctions.
> Yeah, the low traffic means we're pretty OT post tolerant here.
> > For RFD you can also add comp.sys.apple, comp.os.mac, alt.comp.os.mac, > > alt.sys.mac, comp.os.mac and many more if you wish.
> Sure.
> > a more relevant point is that non-barney-googlers may also be subscribed > > to those RFD suggestions of yours so the numbers may be greater.
> Probably, but since they don't post much (e.g. nothing this year > except for the FAQs and spam) the Google headcount is the only measure > I can see. When someone does post, only 20-something (plus unknown non- > Googling non-responding) people see it, as opposed to at least 400- > something Google users in csa2. Which is more likely to get a > response? ;-)
> > 1. is it better to consolidate all posts into one general group
On Sep 12, 11:42 pm, John Flanders <j...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> Point being that not everyone is a google gremlin!!!
You are missing the point of my post.
The google group member headcount is the only easily available _metric_ of how many people read a group. Even if only 50% of readers use google, that should give us a percentage of the total users, and this 50% (or whatever) probably applies across groups. So csa2 is orders of
Anyway, simply look at the content in the groups mentioned. It's mostly spam.
Never used google groups - never needed to, but then I'm just one of those old geeks who still think there was (and is) nothing wrong with Apples DOS 3.3 and even CPM, and I'd even go so far as to say that the CPM rip-off MSDOS was alright. It's too bad MS became way too big and commercial for themselves!! (sorry, a non comp.sys.apple topic rant!)
Anyway - I'm still glad there are some newsgroups like this one that are not too badly spammed, and have some very intelligent and devoted members!! :-)
John
-- Just as sure as gravity holds me to the ground the Lord will lift me up! jf'96
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Nick Westgate wrote: > On Sep 12, 11:42 pm, John Flanders <j...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote: > > Point being that not everyone is a google gremlin!!!
> You are missing the point of my post.
> The google group member headcount is the only easily available > _metric_ of how many people read a group. Even if only 50% of readers > use google, that should give us a percentage of the total users, and > this 50% (or whatever) probably applies across groups. So csa2 is > orders of
> Anyway, simply look at the content in the groups mentioned. > It's mostly spam.
|
