Re: Google Group scistatmath
- From: David Winsemius <doe_snot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:20:08 -0600
Richard Ulrich <Rich.Ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1n4tk2t9jki6ufvs7vrkjv620u0b4otgn8@xxxxxxx:
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.
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.
That estimate is flawed. A bit like using telephones as sampling strategy
in 1932. Many people read newgroups using "real" newsclients drawing from
"real" newservers. They would not be in the Google counts. They would not
necessarily even be countable by the newservers. Subscription is an
action performed at the client level.
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.
Yep. Belongs to Google .... scistatmath will never be on USENET. Google
does not push its group content out into the real USENET.
--
David Winsemius
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Google Group scistatmath
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Google Group scistatmath
- References:
- Re: Google Group scistatmath
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Google Group scistatmath
- From: Richard Ulrich
- Re: Google Group scistatmath
- Prev by Date: Re: Open REMINDER to Afonso on Netiquette
- Next by Date: Re: Good books to read ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Google Group scistatmath
- Next by thread: Re: Google Group scistatmath
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
