Re: Google Group scistatmath


Richard Ulrich wrote:
On 4 Nov 2006 21:23:58 -0800, "Reef Fish"
<large_nassua_grouper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

When I did a search of the STATISTICS about the two groups at
present, I found that there are not 18 subcribers to scistatmath,
while there are 1926 subscribers to sci.stat.math.

Where do you find those?

The same place you found your figures. The 1926 was a typo.
A reversal of the middle two digits.

In my NEXT TWO posts, it had been corrected to 1296, and
then to 1295 -- which I suspected might have been Jack Tomsky
dropping his subscription.


I learned a couple of days ago that Google-groups makes
available the number of its subscribers, so I did some browsing.

I saw 1292 for sci.stat.math and 13 for scistatmath. Today, I
see 1296 for sci.stat.math and 15 for scistatmath. Typos, or
some other source?

It dropped LAST NIGHT, from 1296 to 1295, and today it went
back up to 1296. During the same period, the scistatmath
subscription number went from 18 to 14 and now back to 15.


That 1292 suggests that there *are* still 100 lurkers who
never post, for every poster in a month, since it reflects
only the minority who read through Google-groups.

The former is a faulty inference and conclusion, the latter is
correct for the same reason the former is false.

In subscription numbers, there are such long-known phenomenon
of Cyber-debris. Some (and even many -- if a group or list has
been around a LONG time) accumulated many "dead email
addresses" for subscribers, who either forgot to unsubscribe,
or the email address became inactive and could not be unsubbed,
and they remain there as cyber-debris until someone mannually
delete them.

That happened in the LIST I was in when any subscriber can
LIST all of the other subscribers, and I can recognize from the
subscription list the number of DUPLICATE, triplecat, and
multi-subscription of emal addresses, as well as dead addresses.

No different here, except I can't see the list of subscribers.

But I would guess the number of active READERS of the
sci.stat.math group is no more than 10% of the number of
subscribers.


Here is a question for anyone -- Is "scistatmath" from Google
going to be a Google-only group? My Usenet provider lists
over 100,000 groups, including a variety of mis-spellings, but
it did not include scistatmath when I last checked.

Google only keeps track of USENET groups, such as LISTSERV
lists and Newsgroups.

scistatmath is a Google-only group. ANY psychopath can
create a Google-only group anytime he wants. It will never be
a legitimate newsgroups. For one thing, it lacks the usual
democratic process of establishing such a group, with charter,
and other NG standard requirements.

That's why beliavsky can arbitrary create that group, use the
contracted name (removing the dots) to plagiarise sci.stat.math
while making himself the dictator of the group.

You can do it yourself, Richard! Start your own Google-only
group and call it Ulrichsays group, and you make the rules and
you can post as much quackery and malpractice to your heart's
content, and NOBODY will be able to correct or challenge
you.

You may actually attract MANY MORE subscribers than beliavsky.

-- Reef Fish Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Google Group scistatmath
    ... I learned a couple of days ago that Google-groups makes ... available the number of its subscribers, ... it did not include scistatmath when I last checked. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: An interesting note - definitely off topic
    ... exagerating and publicizing the claim, ... subscribers aren't subjected to advertising. ... entirely familiar with how mailing lists work. ... I put the list on temporary moderation. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • RE: Query or User errors
    ... There's only one practical way for us to know: Show us the SQL. ... query in design view. ... I have a database designed to track subscribers to our paper, ... I'm trying to print my lists for the carriers and I'd like ...
    (microsoft.public.access.queries)
  • Re: Strange dream
    ... was sitting on the bed his face looking at the ceiling. ... Does Rolling Stone really try to make the best lists possible? ... subscribers, but our reporters have little say in what bands they are ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Internet Watch Foundation now investigate site visitors
    ... list of subscribers to a website depicting girl models aged 13 and 14. ... I thought IWF only compiled a list of indecent websites? ... Subscription lists can only be revealed if a site is ...
    (uk.legal)