Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Statistics for comp.os.linux.advocacy, 12 Mar 2007

BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
> 
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> __/ [ BearItAll ] on Tuesday 13 March 2007 09:23 \__
>>> 
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> __/ [ BearItAll ] on Monday 12 March 2007 16:03 \__
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Black Dragon wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Total posts ... over 7 days
>>>>>>>  1: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>......... 474:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> i.e. 67 posts per day.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I thought we had agreed that this was too many of this sort of post
>>>>>> and it was going to be cut down to more reasonable levels?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How about you get an average of how many per day are responded to in
>>>>>> any way, and set that plus say 10% as the limit?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 67 is not the number of threads though. I post many more followups than
>>>>> I used to. The volume is event driven, not 'quota' driven. In fact, the
>>>>> number of threads I start has gone down since you made the polite
>>>>> request, which I always bear in mind. I also try to group related news.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've made a mental note. Thanks for the suggestion.
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I admit I miss read it and took it as threads. Sorry.
>>> 
>>> I'm relieved to hear this. Your previous post became a bit of a burden
>>> this afternoon. I try to pass on worthy news, regardless of pace.
>>> Yesterday, for example, was relatively quiet.
>>> 
>> 
>> I was very surprised at the remark, to be honest.  My feeling is that
>> you are providing an excellent service into Cola.  If bearitall doesn't
>> like it, he can easily and readily killfile the posts.  This group has a
>> charter, your posts are right dead centre within that charter, so there
>> is nothing else for you to consider.  If you want to post several
>> hundred on-topic posts a day, that's up to you!
>> 
> 
> I haven't said I don't like what Roy does, all that I have said at times has
> been to do with the volume of posts. There was a time when they were
> getting out of hand. It was talked about in this news group and he said he
> would cut them down and do more of the multiple topic posts. He did both of
> those things. The mistake I made in reading the stats was to think that the
> 67 were new threads rather than realising that it was both threads and
> Roy's responses to other threads, I suspect that I said it pre-coffee.
> 
> I appologised for that and as far as I'm concerned it was the end of it. Had
> you read the thread you would have seen that I appologised and that Roy
> responded to it. Did you post pre-coffee too?
> 

Not at all - my remarks still stand.  As I said above, if you don't like
the postings, you don't have to read them, and I see no reason at all
to add some kind of arbitrary limit on what are on-topic and pro-charter
posts.  To sum up, I do not agree with your position, and remain
surprised that you said it.  The issue of reading or not reading the
stas was not an issue, which was my point, remains it, and is essentially
what I said above.

To put it another way, I do not see how on-topic posts can "get out of
hand".  I do recall times when off-topic posts have done, of course, but
since Roy started his [News] posting, these times have significantly
receded.

-- 
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk          |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index