For the interested/curious:
2007-07-17 meeting attendance: approximately 22+ (largest in a fair while) 21 dining with us on our regular restaurant deal 1 dining with us on separate menu and pricing I think there was also a smaller bunch (approximately 4) that seemed to want to join us for dining, ... but way late and when there wasn't really any additional seating available with us - I think they went to hang out somewhere else ("lobby", bar?) and may have joined us for at least part of the talk/presentation.
list subscribers (does include also those with delivery disabled): $ wc -l */memb*`date -I` 27 balug-admin/membership_2007-07-24 287 balug-announce/membership_2007-07-24 256 balug-talk/membership_2007-07-24 And a rough approximation of unique e-mail addresses (note that some folks use unique per-list addresses): $ sort -u */membership_*`date -I` | wc -l 467
Note also that it appears we have a fairly large number of folks that are subscribed to "talk", but *NOT* subscribed to "announce". Theoretically (at least logically) that shouldn't be the case (in general - typically exceptions being per-list e-mail addresses), but it is totally under "user" control. A quick count of that: $ { sort -u balug-talk/membership_2007-07-24; cat balug-announce/membership_2007-07-24 balug-announce/membership_2007-07-24; } | sort | uniq -u | wc -l 174
Perhaps we'll address that in the future (e.g. subscribe "talk" to "announce" and remove from "announce" e-mail addresses also present on "talk") ... but for now I'm thinking we'll probably leave it as-is. Perhaps when we're about ready to move the lists ... could test that out a bit, and if such a change would work fine, put such a change in place at time of migration (of course, with such a change in place, nothing would automagically prevent an e-mail address from then subscribing to both lists ... but perhaps we could set up something that would automagically deal with that).
these days the balug talk list is quiet. what are the chances it could become voluminously active? thanks for the stats.
On Jul 24, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Michael Paoli wrote:
For the interested/curious:
2007-07-17 meeting attendance: approximately 22+ (largest in a fair while) 21 dining with us on our regular restaurant deal 1 dining with us on separate menu and pricing I think there was also a smaller bunch (approximately 4) that seemed to want to join us for dining, ... but way late and when there wasn't really any additional seating available with us - I think they went to hang out somewhere else ("lobby", bar?) and may have joined us for at least part of the talk/presentation.
list subscribers (does include also those with delivery disabled): $ wc -l */memb*`date -I` 27 balug-admin/membership_2007-07-24 287 balug-announce/membership_2007-07-24 256 balug-talk/membership_2007-07-24 And a rough approximation of unique e-mail addresses (note that some folks use unique per-list addresses): $ sort -u */membership_*`date -I` | wc -l 467
Note also that it appears we have a fairly large number of folks that are subscribed to "talk", but *NOT* subscribed to "announce". Theoretically (at least logically) that shouldn't be the case (in general - typically exceptions being per-list e-mail addresses), but it is totally under "user" control. A quick count of that: $ { sort -u balug-talk/membership_2007-07-24; cat balug-announce/membership_2007-07-24 balug-announce/membership_2007-07-24; } | sort | uniq -u | wc -l 174
Perhaps we'll address that in the future (e.g. subscribe "talk" to "announce" and remove from "announce" e-mail addresses also present on "talk") ... but for now I'm thinking we'll probably leave it as-is. Perhaps when we're about ready to move the lists ... could test that out a bit, and if such a change would work fine, put such a change in place at time of migration (of course, with such a change in place, nothing would automagically prevent an e-mail address from then subscribing to both lists ... but perhaps we could set up something that would automagically deal with that). _______________________________________________ Balug-Admin mailing list Balug-Admin@lists.balug.org http://lists.balug.org/listinfo.cgi/balug-admin-balug.org
I've noticed that with many UG lists, ... many of them are, for the most part much "quieter" now, than they were in, ... oh, ... roughly 2003 - 2004 time frame.
A typically "pattern" I tend to see in the more recent years, are many of them are quite much/most of the time, ... there are some occasional messages, and once in a while a rather active thread/cascade of messages starts (typically "triggered" from message - and not necessarily first in the "thread") ... activity picks up, ... but after a while that over-all thread mostly quiets back down and typically fades into the background again (sometimes fairly quickly, sometimes going on for quite a while).
Anyway, seems there used to be a fair amount more general activity on various lists I was (and am) still on ... at least for most lists, anyway.
I wonder if anyone has some more substantially statistics on such trends/patterns ... oh, ... say, spanning the from 10 years ago to the present (e.g. some measure of activity of user groups and their lists across that time span). Might make for interesting data (and may also be interesting to see what it does and/or doesn't correlate or strongly correlate to).
Quoting jim stockford jim@well.com:
these days the balug talk list is quiet. what arethe chances it could become voluminously active? thanks for the stats.