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...