Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: These stubborn group champions
Message-ID: <35693@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 16 Oct 89 17:54:58 GMT
References: <8910132350.AA08591@helios.enea.se> <35637@apple.Apple.COM> <33610@looking.on.ca> <3664@epimass.EPI.COM>
Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps
Lines: 20

>>What's the point?  Typical "talk" group propagation (the 'worst' hierarchy)
>>is 80%.  Typical "comp" is 96%.   Typical "rec" is about 86% and goes as
>>high as 94.  "soc" is similar, "misc" is slightly higher.  "sci" is around
>>90-95%.

>These percentages are valid for the sites running arbitron; however, sites
>receiving a restricted set of newsgroups are not running arbitron in general.

Europe (and Australia?) both get sci.all, but don't get soc.all or rec.all --
they choose specific groups of interest from those domains. So from that
simple fact I have to assume that Brian's numbers on propagation are
completely bogus.

-- 

Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking]

Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about
group names doesn't understand the system.