__/ [ Tim Smith ] on Sunday 07 May 2006 16:03 \__
> In article <1604546.0H95uzWoUg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Newsgroups statistics are nothing new. There are many scripts lying about
>> (some public, some private) for mailing lists as well. You can search the
>> Net and post stats to your favourite groups/lists.
>
> A large number of usenet stats on groups and on posters are here:
>
> http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/
I have seen it before (last year), but it's nowhere as scary as Google
Groups profiles, which make it very easy to learn posting history, habits
and identity.
> (And no, I haven't read the entire thread to see if someone already posted
> it).
Later I realised that you had posted another message (just minutes
afterwards). Therein you wrote more than a single word. Perhaps it's
nothing more than my humble opinion, but if a message takes longer to
click and 'calibrate' sight on than it takes to read, it become rather
obsolete. It just adds to traffic and clutter while bearing little
substance (knowledge/information). I can think of a few newsgroups where
inane one-liners drove me away.
Just my opinion...
RoyS
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Disclaimer: no SCO code used to generate this post
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:15pm up 9 days 23:12, 12 users, load average: 0.77, 0.71, 0.62
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
