Xref: utzoo alt.config:78 news.config:484 Path: utzoo!hoptoad!daisy!nsc!voder!pyramid!csg From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) Newsgroups: alt.config,news.config Subject: Re: The size of the 'alt' subnet Message-ID: <15559@pyramid.pyramid.com> Date: 25 Feb 88 23:31:27 GMT References: <5077@swan.ulowell.edu> <1939@epimass.EPI.COM> Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA Lines: 21 >>Since I only got 550, I'd say rather than 66% of the network sites carrying >>alt.sources, it might be closer to 6%. It shows how the "self-selecting" >>arbitron sample can produce bogus results. >If INTERNET isn't defined (it isn't in most systems on the net, still) news >will reply to the Path: header, and we all know how well THAT works. Well, setting INTERNET didn't work so hot either. I saw our reply to the sendsys go out, as well as several from the 20 sites we feed alt.all. All took the internet route. None bounced. None showed up in the listing. My experience from my Bay Area sendsys is that fewer than 50% of the replies get through. If you tree that out on a national level, I would not be overly surprised if you got a reply from fewer than 25% of the sites receiving sites. However, the claim that arbitron shows a highly irregular number of alt sites makes sense. Obtaining alt and running arbitron both require deliberate action from the sysadmin. Sysadmins who care enough about USENET to run arbitron are almost certainly much more likely to be interested in alt.