Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!amdahl!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: What newsgroups are *really* needed?
Message-ID: <3228@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 5-Oct-85 13:18:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: nsc.3228
Posted: Sat Oct  5 13:18:48 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 04:48:02 EDT
References: <2242@ukma.UUCP> <581@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>
Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Ninja Ewok Training Grounds
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.news:4026 net.news.group:3881

In article <581@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes:
>I find this totally worthless.  The sampling of readership is taken from a
>very small population.  The decisions on what is or is not "hard to justify"
>are completely and absolutely subjective.  I often got the feeling, while
>looking through the list, that "hard to justify" meant "I, Herron, don't
>have any interest in the subject matter, and it isn't about computers,
>so...."  I fail to see any value in this.

Actually, when you're talkinga about removing availability of groups from a
small population, it makes sense to sample that population. If you're
talking about removing groups from a large population, you need a more
scientific approach. It WAS interesting, though to compare his stuff to
what is happening out here in the bay area where people are doing
readership surveys on a regional basis... I found it rather suprising which
groups don't seem to have a lot of following on a pretty wide ranging
basis.
-- 
:From under the bar at Callahan's:   Chuq Von Rospach 
nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA               {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui

If you can't talk below a bellow, you can't talk...