More What Shall We Do?

[katefans@world.std.com (Chris'n'Vickie of Kansas City)]

Vickie here.

Richi writes:

> If an administrator doesn't set the permissions for moderated groups so
> that users can't write to the group, then the note passes through the
> network until it hits a site running News.  At this point, the site will
> spot that the article is for a moderated group, and redirect it to the
> moderator via mail.                                 ^^^^^^^^

> In the case of rec.music.gaffa however, the moderator doesn't manually
> sift the submissions much these days (too busy a life), so the group itself
> receives n-million duplicate copies; as has happened just recently.

Since I told everyone all they had to do was post, that's my fault. Sorry!
I still don't understand WHY .gaffa can't be unmoderated!
What's the problem with just passing the word around to the various
sites that rec.music.gaffa is *no longer* moderated?


  |>oug wrote this:

>>   Furthermore, at least half of the serious contributors to Love-Hounds
>>   only receive the digest and do not have access to UseNet.
>>   Furthermore, it's the gatewaying between the mailing list and newsgroup
>>   that is the hardest thing to maintain, and if I was going to cancel
>>   one of them, it would be the newsgroup -- not the mailing list.
                  ^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^    


All this talk about USENET prompted me to go into our files
and dig this out. I've (obviously) cut out hundreds of newsgroups, but I
left a few in to show perspective on where .gaffa is in the scheme of
things. This was in the files at World, our site.

          -----------------------------------------------

> This is the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Jan 90.
> Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting.



       +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
       |                                                        ^^^^^^^^^
       |
       |     +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
       |     |     +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
       |     |     |      +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
       |     |     |      |     +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
       |     |     |      |     |      +-- Crossposting percentage
       |     |     |      |     |      |    +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader
       |     |     |      |     |      |    |       +-- Share: % of readers
       |     |     |      |     |      |    |       |   who read this group.
       V     V     V      V     V      V    V       V
  1110000  3723   95%    65  142.5     0%  0.00   12.8%  rec.humor.funny
  2 97000  3426   75%  1703 3597.4    15%  0.05   11.8%  alt.sex
  9 73000  2573   97%   437  820.1    15%  0.02    8.9%  comp.graphics
 21 51000  1800   93%  1526 2719.3     6%  0.09    6.2%  rec.arts.movies

 44 38000  1347   93%  1729 3079.4    14%  0.14    4.6%  rec.music.misc

 85 29000  1018   94%   286  460.5     7%  0.03    3.5%  rec.arts.books
 96 27000   956   90%   590  805.9     9%  0.05    3.3%  rec.music.cd
252 15000   537   91%   556 1237.7     2%  0.14    1.8%  rec.arts.anime
257 15000   532   75%   270  422.7     6%  0.04    1.8%  alt.cult-movies
262 15000   524   92%   273  445.3    16%  0.05    1.8%  rec.music.folk
265 15000   520   92%   249  410.7    10%  0.05    1.8%  rec.music.beatles

346 11000   391   94%   392 1114.3     0%  0.18    1.3%  rec.music.gaffa
    ^^^^^

         ----------------------------------------------------------

There were dozens more after .gaffa so we're not anywhere near the
bottom of the ladder.

Estimated 11,000 readers worldwide huh? A lot of you sure are keeping quiet!

Speaking of USENET users, here's an excerpt from a letter I received
from Andreas Siivo (the NICE! guy from eastern Finland-I hope you don't
mind this Andreas-btw,everyone, I did get through to him via e-mail!). 

> I could ever have imagined. I think that she really is a great genius,
> BETTER than any Mozart, Beethoven, Bach etc. far more better, she is
> the best composer ever. It is really nice to read rec.music.gaffa when
> people have similar feelings and ideas. A guy told that "The Dreaming
> is the album *I* *love* *every* *song*", it is nice to listen that.
> Also stories about finding Kate are really nice to read.

> Last fall I noticed that a guy was reading rec.music.gaffa that I had
> found from the club-magazine. I learned to use news and here I write.
> I learned to read news only because of rec.music.gaffa
  ^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^

Yeah, ditto for Chris & I

                ------------------------
The Fellow Who Supplies Homeground writes in response to Doug's posting
reprinted earlier in this post:

>    So if we're not in that petite coterie, we are to be denied all of the
>    informative, educational, entertaining, and infuriating aspects of
>    r.m.g.? I rely entirely on the USENET for gaffa, and, as I print out all
>    the Kate related postings and mail them to Homeground each month, so do
>    they (that's why Love-Hounds now gets a credit in the news section of
>    each issue). I would appreciate it if we could be advised on what's
>    happening to the group as soon as the new arrangements are confirmed.

Peter writes:

>  As one of the 139 in the "petite coterie" who only see gaffa postings
> via the Love-Hounds Digest on the INTERNET, I much appreciate Doug's
> concern for us.  At the same time, jim%BILPIN.UUCP has a point too,
> especially if it has been USENET that made possible the highly stimulating
> international participation at gaffa.


Eric writes:

> I too rely on netnews for my gaffa, so I would not like to see the
> connection between r.m.g. and the mailing list (Love-Hounds?) sundered.

Derek writes:

> Just my luck! I'm in touch with the love-hounds for less than a week
> and find out it may not last much longer.  Please don't let it die!


There were more but you get the gist.


***  rec.music.gaffa is TOO IMPORTANT to become "just" a mailing list. ***


Vickie & Chris
katefans@world.std.com