Newsgroup size - does it matter?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Edward Dolan said:

A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS will
never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!

It's too late isn't it? Just a simple survival of the fittest amongst
all the 60+k newsgroups that ever existed. And the format of usenet has
long been determined, and realistically, it's shaped by the
participants. If you can shape it, great. If you can't, bad luck. No?
--

Artoi said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Edward Dolan said:

A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS will
never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!

It's too late isn't it? Just a simple survival of the fittest amongst
all the 60+k newsgroups that ever existed. And the format of usenet has
long been determined, and realistically, it's shaped by the
participants. If you can shape it, great. If you can't, bad luck. No?

Well, many of the former participants of alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
decided they preferred to post to a web forum where the moderators play
"net nanny" by warning people when they drift away from what is
"approved", locking threads and deleting posts.

If ya can't stand the heat...

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
Post Free or Die!

Edward Dolan said:

Newsgroup size is the single most important thing you can know about a
newsgroup. By size, I do not mean the number of posts or even the number of
members, but rather the number of members who regularly post to the group.

AB and RBM are large groups, but they are not huge. Furthermore, they appear
larger than they really are because there are so many members on those two
groups who post disproportionately. So what is a huge group? URC is a huge
group as there are very many members who post to it, not just a few. You can
no more make an impression on that group than you can on the ocean by adding
a few drops to it. We should prefer such a large group since it ensures that
there will always be some interesting threads available for the reader.

ARBR and RBS are very small groups. This is a disaster because such small
groups are always in danger of going out of business altogether. It is also
means that a few members can easily dominate the group.

A point well taken.

Quoted message said:

This is not a good thing,

So ... LEAVE!!!

Quoted message said:

but there are just so many folks who do not like to post to a small
group. I have never wanted to dominate any group, large or small.

Total BULLSHITt!!!

Quoted message said:

I have been accused of being a troll mainly because I am posting to multiple
groups and because I drag others' posts and threads to ARBR.

You have been accused of being a troll simply becuase you precisely fit
the definition of a TROLL!!!

Quoted message said:

But I do this
because ARBR is so small that it is in danger of ceasing to exist.

Rationalization ... nothing more ... nothing less.

Quoted message said:

I hope I
will be able to forego the multiple posting in the near future as the group
recovers from the criminal vandal troll that we were infested with a couple
of years ago. Both ARBR and RBS are in sad shape due to their smallness.

They are in bad shape because you are here.

Quoted message said:

A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS will
never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!

IN your own words...

"I frankly do not have the slightest idea what newsgroups are all
about."

"Usenet is strictly for idiots, [censored] and jerks - positively no
exceptions! When I am on Usenet I try to be the biggest idiot, [censored]
and jerk of them all. I set the standard for one and all. I believe I
can state with absolute assurance that I am the Greatest Idiot, the
Greatest [censored] and the Greatest Jerk that Usenet has ever known in
its' long and dishonored history. For Christ's sakes, I prove it every
time I post. Can't any of you poor [censored] read?"

"I am merely a gadfly buzzing about this group ever striving to create
some mayhem. I am superfluous. Think of me as the buffoon of ARBR and
you will not be far wrong."

"All I ever want to do is to defeat and humiliate you, but how can I do
that if you refuse to post your idiotic messages. Please show some
consideration for the Great Ed Dolan and post to these cycling
newsgroups."

Your reputation precedes you and your own words betray your
credibility. Who cares what you think.

Jim McNamara

Quoted message said:

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Newsgroup size is the single most important thing you can know about a
newsgroup. By size, I do not mean the number of posts or even the number
of members, but rather the number of members who regularly post to the
group.

AB and RBM are large groups, but they are not huge. Furthermore, they
appear larger than they really are because there are so many members on
those two groups who post disproportionately. So what is a huge group? URC
is a huge group as there are very many members who post to it, not just a
few. You can no more make an impression on that group than you can on the
ocean by adding a few drops to it. We should prefer such a large group
since it ensures that there will always be some interesting threads
available for the reader.

ARBR and RBS are very small groups. This is a disaster because such small
groups are always in danger of going out of business altogether. It is
also means that a few members can easily dominate the group. This is not a
good thing, but there are just so many folks who do not like to post to a
small group. I have never wanted to dominate any group, large or small.

I have been accused of being a troll mainly because I am posting to
multiple groups and because I drag others' posts and threads to ARBR. But
I do this because ARBR is so small that it is in danger of ceasing to
exist. I hope I will be able to forego the multiple posting in the near
future as the group recovers from the criminal vandal troll that we were
infested with a couple of years ago. Both ARBR and RBS are in sad shape
due to their smallness.

A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS
will never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

It's not the size of the newsgroup that matters, it's how you use it.

I have heard that three inches is enough, one in one out and one in and out.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Newsgroup size is the single most important thing you can know about a
newsgroup. By size, I do not mean the number of posts or even the number of
members, but rather the number of members who regularly post to the group.
....
A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS will
never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!

Heaven forbid anyone would consider whether the posts in a group were
*relevant* to the group!

Your one-man crusade to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio is having its
effect, arbr is getting less useful by the day.

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

<general statement>

It's not the quantity, but the quality that counts

</statement>

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Messages sent to the above "E" addy will be lost forever! If you want to
E-mail me:

ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

"Boostland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Newsgroup size is the single most important thing you can know about a
newsgroup. By size, I do not mean the number of posts or even the number
of members, but rather the number of members who regularly post to the
group.

AB and RBM are large groups, but they are not huge. Furthermore, they
appear larger than they really are because there are so many members on
those two groups who post disproportionately. So what is a huge group?
URC is a huge group as there are very many members who post to it, not
just a few. You can no more make an impression on that group than you can
on the ocean by adding a few drops to it. We should prefer such a large
group since it ensures that there will always be some interesting threads
available for the reader.

ARBR and RBS are very small groups. This is a disaster because such small
groups are always in danger of going out of business altogether. It is
also means that a few members can easily dominate the group. This is not
a good thing, but there are just so many folks who do not like to post to
a small group. I have never wanted to dominate any group, large or small.

I have been accused of being a troll mainly because I am posting to
multiple groups and because I drag others' posts and threads to ARBR. But
I do this because ARBR is so small that it is in danger of ceasing to
exist. I hope I will be able to forego the multiple posting in the near
future as the group recovers from the criminal vandal troll that we were
infested with a couple of years ago. Both ARBR and RBS are in sad shape
due to their smallness.

A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS
will never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby
newsgroups. Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!

It's not the size of the newsgroup that matters, it's how you use it.

[...]

Nope, I am convinced that size is the one thing that matters the most. A
newsgroup with few members is doomed. It is just a matter of time.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Joshua Putnam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

[newsgroups restored]

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Newsgroup size is the single most important thing you can know about a
newsgroup. By size, I do not mean the number of posts or even the number
of
members, but rather the number of members who regularly post to the
group.
....
A large group is always to be preferred to a small group. ARBR and RBS
will
never be large, but they need to be larger. I hate clubby newsgroups.
Surely, that is what chat rooms are for, not Usenet!

Heaven forbid anyone would consider whether the posts in a group were
*relevant* to the group!

Your one-man crusade to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio is having its
effect, arbr is getting less useful by the day.

I shall press on a like the good soldier that I am. ARBR and RBS are worth
saving. There is no need to worry about the other cycling groups as they are
large enough to survive just about anything, even a troll like Ed Gin.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota