Re: AACP - Apple-to-Apple Copy
Bill Buckels
>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.
Nick Westgate
> 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 think so.
Cheers,
Nick.
John Flanders
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
Nick Westgate
> 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.
Cheers,
Nick.
John Flanders
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