Xref: utzoo news.groups:12380 news.misc:3620
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!gatech!bbn!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc
Subject: Re: Report Card on the success of the group creation guidelines
Message-ID: <45814@bbn.COM>
Date: 20 Sep 89 12:15:44 GMT
References: <17735@looking.on.ca> <1989Sep20.060201.4473@rpi.edu>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 26

In article <1989Sep20.060201.4473@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes:
}None of the alternate hierarchies should even be included in Brad's
}report card, since you claim it addresses the group creation
}guidelines.  

I disagree.  The hypothesis under consideration is whether the
guidelines we follow in fact have any merit: if they act as a filter to
improve the quality, popularity, etc, of the groups that succeed in
running their gauntlet.  The problem with testing this hypothesis SOLELY
on the main-hierarchy newsgroups is that there is no way to measure the
*effect* of the guidelines.

However, if we contrast the mainline hierarchy against, say, the alt
hierarchy, we can SEE if the guidelines make any apparent difference.
I agree that one should be careful about "per machine" stats for the
main hierarchy: LOTS of sites carry *all* of the 'approved' newsgroups,
and so mainline newsgroups will surely have more trouble getting the
same 'average' (just as once you distribute a formerly 'club' magaznie
nationally, dividing by the new "potential circulation" is
hopeless).    But that also cuts the other way, of course: LOTS more
people have the easy-opportunity to read and post to the new groups.
So while I think you have to be judicious about what stats you use and
how you weigh them, comparing the new-newsgroup profiles between the
hierarchies seems pretty reasonable to me.

  /Bernie\