Xref: utzoo news.admin:7917 news.groups:15481 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: Fixing the unbroken Message-ID: <58905@looking.on.ca> Date: 8 Dec 89 22:51:05 GMT References: <57577@looking.on.ca> <12074@cbnews.ATT.COM> Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Lines: 34 Class: discussion We come back to the original question. People have various opinions about how well the process has worked. Perhaps it is important, before proposing any method, to define some sort of metric for the success of that method. Admittedly with some schemes the metric *is* the method, as might appear to be the case for readership measurements. But with trial groups, it would be worthwhile comparing readership from the trial period and after creation (for successes) to see how good a predictor the trial distribution was. And yes, the trial distribution could be skewed. But not nearly as much as "voting" is skewed! And those who feel they are not represented are thus encouraged to send in reports. If they do it regularly, then not only do we get their slightly skewing reports for the trial group at hand, but their non-biased reports for the other trial groups, and trial groups to come. I expect most of trial would get at least a 40% propagation -- perhaps more. Alt gets as much as 60 to 70%. Two special sub-hierarchies, namely trial.dangerous (for groups like sex, drugs etc. that might be illegal in some jurisdictions) and trial.commercial (for groups like misc.forsale, comp.newprod, news.announce.conferences, misc.jobs.* etc.) would get lower propagation, but not a lot lower, I think. Pretty good results, I predict. Unfortunately, we can hardly find out if people want trial groups over "voting" by holding a "vote!" Such a result would be as meaningful as, "amazingly 100% of survey respondents said that they liked responding to surveys!" -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473