Did I miss the Era of GA?

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:35:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in
:


Bwawhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhah!

I have a six month old puppy downstairs that knows more than you about
aviation!



bertie


While I may sympathize with your sentiment, I find the "CB" ambiance
of your attack posts repugnant, and unbecoming an airman. Show a
little dignity, man. Please.

Or better yet, take it to e-mail, so that it doesn't reflect poorly on
the face the participants of this newsgroup show the world.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:35:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in
:


Bwawhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhah!

I have a six month old puppy downstairs that knows more than you about
aviation!



bertie



While I may sympathize with your sentiment, I find the "CB" ambiance
of your attack posts repugnant, and unbecoming an airman. Show a
little dignity, man. Please.

Or better yet, take it to e-mail, so that it doesn't reflect poorly on
the face the participants of this newsgroup show the world.

There are a gazillion newsgroups, the world doesn't see any of it. Fire
for effect.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:34:06 -0600, Newps wrote
in :

There are a gazillion newsgroups,

Well, a few tens of thousands any way.

the world doesn't see any of it.

Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but upon what do you base that
opinion?

Larry Dighera wrote:

the world doesn't see any of it.


Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but upon what do you base that
opinion?



There's maybe 50 people here. Even if there are several times that that
never post, highly unlikely, this group, as any group, is irrelavant.

Newps wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

the world doesn't see any of it.


Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but upon what do you base that
opinion?

There's maybe 50 people here. Even if there are several times that that
never post, highly unlikely, this group, as any group, is irrelavant.

Your estimate is _way_ low. According to this site:

http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/ReportCard.aspx

there were 850 distinct posters to this group so far this year. And there
were 2264 distinct posters to this group in 2006. It would take an awful
lot of duplicate handles to reduce the count of distinct people to the 50
range.

And Google Groups alone counts 1088 people subscribed to the group via its
interface to Usenet:

http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?...23723&expand=1

And the count of lurkers who only read is unknown - though I've heard
ratios of anywhere from about 5-to-1 to 50-to-1 for other groups where
someone tried to make estimates (presumably by running stats on NNTP
traffic or in the old days, maybe via root scans of people's .newsrc?)

In fact it should be possible to get a ballpark estimate of the lurker-to-
active ratio by counting the number of distinct posters who posted from
google.com and dividing the 1088 number by that count.

Therefore it seems reasonable to claim that there are several thousand
people who read this newsgroup. It might even reach into the ten thousand
range.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Newps wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

the world doesn't see any of it.


Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but upon what do you base that
opinion?

There's maybe 50 people here. Even if there are several times that
that never post, highly unlikely, this group, as any group, is
irrelavant.

Your estimate is _way_ low. According to this site:

http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/ReportCard.aspx

there were 850 distinct posters to this group so far this year. And
there were 2264 distinct posters to this group in 2006. It would take
an awful lot of duplicate handles to reduce the count of distinct
people to the 50 range.

And Google Groups alone counts 1088 people subscribed to the group via
its interface to Usenet:

http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?...23835,16823723
&expand=
1

And the count of lurkers who only read is unknown - though I've heard
ratios of anywhere from about 5-to-1 to 50-to-1 for other groups where
someone tried to make estimates (presumably by running stats on NNTP
traffic or in the old days, maybe via root scans of people's .newsrc?)

In fact it should be possible to get a ballpark estimate of the
lurker-to- active ratio by counting the number of distinct posters who
posted from google.com and dividing the 1088 number by that count.

Therefore it seems reasonable to claim that there are several thousand
people who read this newsgroup. It might even reach into the ten
thousand range.

whoo hoo!

Bertie

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:53:03 -0600, Newps wrote
in :



Larry Dighera wrote:

the world doesn't see any of it.


Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but upon what do you base that
opinion?



There's maybe 50 people here. Even if there are several times that that
never post, highly unlikely, this group, as any group, is irrelavant.

Irrelevant to whom?

The newsgroup is as relevant as the information, and to some extent
opinion, contributed. Or do you mean to imply that you consider the
newsgroup irrelevant due to minimal public exposure to its content,
perhaps more properly termed insignificant?

I would expect it reasonable to guess that 90% or the readership of
rec.aviation.piloting are solely readers, and don't post articles. 500
still isn't a large number of participants in this forum. But when
you consider that it's gatewayed via http to many more web sites on
the WWW, and further consider the fact that all the content of the
newsgroup is archived on-line for decades, what gets posted to
rec.aviation.piloting sees considerably more exposure over the years
than you might expect.

You're a regular contributor to rec.aviation.piloting. Google your
posting alias, and see how many hits you get (Results 1 - 100 of about
31,500 for newps. (0.26 seconds) . Then report back.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:35:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in
:


Bwawhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhah!

I have a six month old puppy downstairs that knows more than you about
aviation!



bertie


While I may sympathize with your sentiment, I find the "CB" ambiance
of your attack posts repugnant, and unbecoming an airman. Show a
little dignity, man. Please.

Or better yet, take it to e-mail, so that it doesn't reflect poorly on
the face the participants of this newsgroup show the world.


Not gonna happen Larry..

Bertie