Xref: utzoo news.groups:12571 news.misc:3654
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mcnc!thorin!unc!oliver
From: oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc
Subject: Re: Report Card on the success of the group creation guidelines
Message-ID: <9673@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 25 Sep 89 18:42:23 GMT
References: <17735@looking.on.ca> <1989Sep20.060201.4473@rpi.edu> <45814@bbn.COM> <4402@ncar.ucar.edu> <18401@looking.on.ca>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 26

In article <18401@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>The real figure we want is total readers per 'thing that costs money,'
>namely long disk storage and long distance transmission.  But that's harder
>to figure out.


I think that some of these low-readership or low-posting
groups are saving resources because their existence decreases 
traffic to higher-readership groups.  For example, in olden time,
about every six months or so somebody in soc.women would write
in and call for a boycott of male posters, or some modification
of that call. There would ensue a good deal of posting
and flaming regarding who should or should not be posting
and how folk are nice or not nice posters, etc.  


I have not seen that call for a while, and I think that some
of it is due to the existence of soc.feminism -- a nice, moderated
place where people are supposed to be polite and socially acceptable.
As far as I'm concerned, the primary value of soc.feminism is its
effect on soc.women. I'll bet there is quite a net savings in bandwidth
even if few people post to or read the group.    


Bill Oliver