![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HUD view of a near-miss | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 32 | December 16th 06 11:03 PM |
Come to Minden... we miss you all.. | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | July 1st 06 05:21 AM |
Why Screeners Miss Guns and Knives (and why pilots miss planes and airports) | cjcampbell | Piloting | 2 | January 3rd 06 04:24 AM |
ATC of Near-Miss over BOS | Marco Leon | Piloting | 40 | August 31st 05 01:53 PM |
Miss May 2004 | Capt.Doug | Home Built | 2 | March 21st 04 09:48 PM |