Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: mailing lists vs. newsgroups: facts Message-ID: <3276@nsc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 17:15:26 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.3276 Posted: Tue Sep 17 17:15:26 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 05:32:53 EDT References: <3221@nsc.UUCP> <789@vortex.UUCP> <3256@nsc.UUCP> <915@munnari.OZ> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: Uncle Chuqui's Lemming Farm Lines: 154 In article <915@munnari.OZ> kre@munnari.OZ (Robert Elz) writes: >In <3221@nsc.UUCP> Chuq created a formula that purported to >determine the number of users needed on a mailing list before >it becomes more economical to make it a mailing list. The >number derived was something between 40 and 107. > >Frankly, I thought that the inadequacy of the formula so >patently obvious, that providing "facts" to rebut it would >be hardly worth the trouble, but here goes anyway. sigh. The point I was TRYING to make with Lauren's comment is that many people on the net seem to think that saying "I don't like it so it isn't true" is a valid argument. WHY don't you like it, fergawshsakes? If you don't tell us WHY its wrong, why should we believe you any more than we should believe the Easter bunny? Because you comb your hair in the morning? If you explain what you don't like about a concept, then we can either agree to throw it away (because there was a flaw that wasn't caught) ro we can improve it. Just bitching at it doesn't give us a chance to do either, because it doesn't give us insight into the problems. [Editorial sidenote: besides the school of thought that has been beating on me mercilously because they disagree with me without telling me why they disagree with me (making me wonder if the disagreement is nothing more than an emotional or personal response and not a factual one), I'm getting a lot of responses that say, in essense, "dunderhead, you left this out, so the formula ain't right! throw it out!" Now, the reality is that I KNOW the silly thing isn't as rigorous as it could be, but the black/white attitude of its either right or its worthless is VERY discouraging. Many sectors of the net seem to think that if it doesn't spring out immediately into perfection it isn't worth working on, and that just isn't so. My hope is to take what I think is a good first approximation (and I'll bet that the turnaround point for an average mailing list IS between my worst and best case, somewhere) and turn it into a good second approximation. I happen to appreciate feedback, even/especially negative feedback because it helps me get a better perspective on the problem, but if your comments fall into the following categories, you're better off staying home and kicking your dog: o I hate anyone who looks like you o anything you do sucks o that idea sucks (unless you tell me why, so I can either fix it or understand why it isn't fixable. o you left out the second comma in the fourth sentence of the third paragraph, so obviously your idea is worthless. If you can't criticize constructively, the net is MUCH better off simply by having you keep quiet. I guarantee you that if an idea DOES suck, the word will get around, along with an explanation why. We ought to be working together on this stuff, folks, not tossing rotten tomatoes. end editorial sidebar, back to our program in progress] >According to Chuq, if I establish a mailing list with (lets >overestimate for safety) 200 members, then it is more economical >to the net at large to turn it into a newsgroup (perhaps >moderated). Numbers are the only criterion that counts... > >Well, my mailing list is in Australia - the formula doesn't >include localities as a parameter - in fact, it concerns >some local Australian TV soap opera that isn't seen outside >Australia, and never will be. > >Yet, somehow, amazingly, its more economical to the net as >a whole to turn this thing into a newsgroup than to leave it >as a mailing list! It is even MORE ecnomical to set up a newsgroup with an australian distribution (which is only sane, because you then drop all of the sites out of the formula that don't apply to australia). The same would be true about american soap operas using usa or na instead of net. A variation of this formula would apply, but you would need to build the numbers to the affected subnet. There was a 'basic' assumption to the formula that we were talking about things that have relatively even distribution across the net and even interests across the net. Add a flavor of geographic restriction to it, and you need to vary the equation to fit. It is much easier, though, to take a known formula and change it to fit a special case than to try to build all the special cases into the formula ahead of time, because you then end up with formulas that look like they came out of the BLS -- very accurate, but representative of nothing. >[Please don't interject & say I could create a local, or >Australian newsgroup - of course I could. But that isn't >what 'the formula' supposedly tells me - it says that a "net" >or "mod" group is appropriate for my list. Well, I have and that is because a formula is only as good as the assumptions surrounding it. One assumption was that we were talking about a 'general purpose' mailing list -> newsgroup conversion. Your example violates that assumption, so attempting to fit it into the formula is invalid. This isn't "THE FORMULA", this is just a formula that tries to find out what the general case is. Once we can agree on a general case, we can derive the formula to find the special cases, but worrying about special cases now is premature and will only keep us away from the real problems in the formula. >Come on - that formula is far too simplistic, to decide that >any particular mailing list would be more economical as a >newsgroup takes much more analysis than just counting members. Agreed. Among the things it leaves out because I couldn't quantify them (any suggestions?) are: o increased backbone loads to places like ihnp4 and seismo, since they'd see more traffic from a mailing list. o better quantification of the local call versus long distance calls in the cost of things. o dealing with the very expensive trans-oceanic links o dealing with the cost-free ARPA connections (excluding content problems involved) o added cost of a newsgroup caused by having a single message take multiple paths to places (we can factor in the duplicate article rejection rate in somehow, probably) o reduced cost of a mailing list moderator screening garbage o reduced cost of a mailing list moderator digesting stuff (fewer, larger messages helping reduce uucp overhead) o added advantage of reduced distribution time of a mailing list (mail being MUCH faster than news in general). Among other things, reduces garbage of duplicated postings because you don't have 99,000 people telling you what city "Hill Street Blues" is in. You also get needed information faster. o how redistribution points along the way for mailing lists affect things, since it causes some messages to 'share' a hop, making a mailing list cheaper in effect. >In his articles, Chuq issued pleas for more facts on the net. >I concur - but please lets have *facts* not pseudo-facts, I'd >much rather read an article which is clearly someone's opinion, >unsupported by anything, than one which pretends to be solid >fact, and is wrong. Well, I'll happily thank Robert for taking the time to pull apart my comments so I can try to put them together again. Beside allowing/forcing me to clarify things, he's brought up some good points, which I hope I've covered. I think my idea is valid. I think my implementation is good, as far as it goes. I KNOW I need help in improving it. I've gotten a fair amount of good and useful feedback on it to date as well as all the swill, and I've tried to discuss the feedback with people (and ignore the swill). Just because it isn't perfect, folks, don't throw it away. Make it better... Cooperation and discussion will help us bring the network forward. Rotten tomatoes don't solve anything... -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui Take time to stop and count the ewoks...