[STATS] Cypherpunks subscriptions on and off

The following table shows cypherpunks subscription activity
for the period 12 Oct 1996 thru 07 January 1996.

Date    ~Days   #Subs   Gain   Loss   Gain / day   Loss / day
-----   -----   -----   ----   ----   ----------   ----------
10/12     n/a    1361    n/a    n/a          n/a          n/a
11/04      23    1353    211    219          9.2          9.5
11/30      26    1299    173    227          6.7          8.7
12/18      18    1262    120    157          6.7          8.7
01/07      20    1291    151    122          7.6          6.1
        -----   -----   ----   ----   ----------   ----------
Totals:    87            655    725          7.5          8.3

Interpretation:

Unless the reversal of gain/loss in the 5th data row is permanent,
c-punks are losing 0.8 bodies per day, or 294 subscribers per year.

Actually, the constant high turnover suggests something else:
Many people join the list and get back off again due to the high
volume and their own personal time constraints.  Unless Sandy can
cut *way* back on the number of posts to the list, i.e. excise a *lot*
more postings than just the blatant Spam and "Timmy is a....." posts,
it won't make any difference to those people who come and go.

In effect, Sandy is going to have to cut the number of daily posts
(to the moderated list) from, say, 100 per day down to, say, 20 or
25 per day.  This would certainly be a goal of his, since most of the
subscriber comments I've heard indicate that even 50 posts per day of
"relevant political/social commentary" is way too high for them.

As to the net loss in subscribers, the moderation of the list could
have a substantial effect on the number of subscribers short-term,
but whatever trend we have here will continue regardless, since the
real value and character of the list is not determined by the posts
which are removed (unless it were that some of the character and value
is going to be removed), but by long-term factors which are to be
expected when the principals get older, less involved, and less
contentious (like Sandy, wanting to avoid conflict).

Total subscribers for:

Tue 14 Jan: 13
Wed 15 Jan: 15
Thu 16 Jan: 13
Fri 17 Jan: 14

Looks like one of two things:
Either nobody wants the unedited list, or, some of the "regular people"
subscribe to the edited list and "flames" list separately, to get both.

Total subscribers for cypherpunks-unedited:
-------------------------------------------
Tue 14 Jan: 13
Wed 15 Jan: 15
Thu 16 Jan: 13
Fri 17 Jan: 15
Tue 21 Jan: 28
Fri 24 Jan: 30
Mon 27 Jan: 34
Tue 04 Feb: 43
Tue 11 Feb: 62

When Gilmore made his pronouncement that "the subscribers have spoken",
only a minority of the "real" subscribers were on the -unedited list.

Since the above figures don't include Sandfort's entry, the jump to
62 as of yesterday (despite the discontinuance) easily represents
the majority of the active (real) subscribers.  Another blood stain
on Gilmore's shroud, as it were.

posted

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:37:58 -0800
> From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com, freedom-knights@jetcafe.org,
>     cypherpunks@algebra.com
> Cc: dlv@bwalk.dm.com
> Subject: [STATS] Cypherpunks-unedited subscriptions
> 
> Total subscribers for cypherpunks-unedited:
> -------------------------------------------
> Tue 14 Jan: 13
> Wed 15 Jan: 15
> Thu 16 Jan: 13
> Fri 17 Jan: 15
> Tue 21 Jan: 28
> Fri 24 Jan: 30
> Mon 27 Jan: 34
> Tue 04 Feb: 43
> Tue 11 Feb: 62
> 
> When Gilmore made his pronouncement that "the subscribers have spoken",
> only a minority of the "real" subscribers were on the -unedited list.
> 
> Since the above figures don't include Sandfort's entry, the jump to
> 62 as of yesterday (despite the discontinuance) easily represents
> the majority of the active (real) subscribers.  Another blood stain
> on Gilmore's shroud, as it were.
>

Dale Thorn allegedly said:
> 
> The following table shows cypherpunks subscription activity
> for the period 12 Oct 1996 thru 07 January 1996.
[...]

> Interpretation:
> 
> Unless the reversal of gain/loss in the 5th data row is permanent,
> c-punks are losing 0.8 bodies per day, or 294 subscribers per year.
> 
> Actually, the constant high turnover suggests something else:
> Many people join the list and get back off again due to the high
> volume and their own personal time constraints. 

As a relatively new subscriber I find the single factor most likely 
to get me to leave is the garbage on the list.

And a significant portion of the traffic is discussion about that garbage.

> Unless Sandy can
> cut *way* back on the number of posts to the list, i.e. excise a *lot*
> more postings than just the blatant Spam and "Timmy is a....." posts,
> it won't make any difference to those people who come and go.

No.  The blatant spam and "Timmy isa" posts are more annoying 
than the large volume, at least in my case.  
[...]

> As to the net loss in subscribers, the moderation of the list could
> have a substantial effect on the number of subscribers short-term,
> but whatever trend we have here will continue regardless, since the
> real value and character of the list is not determined by the posts
> which are removed (unless it were that some of the character and value
> is going to be removed), but by long-term factors which are to be
> expected when the principals get older, less involved, and less
> contentious (like Sandy, wanting to avoid conflict).

Moderation may actually cause the list to grow at a faster pace.

While I don't agree with your analysis in the short run, in the long 
run volume on the list will be *the* problem -- just due to the 
growth of the net.  And in the long run, undoubtedly further 
structure will evolve -- there is no meaningful way to deal with say 
10000 messages per day without some way of structuring the flow.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

Kent Crispin wrote:
> Dale Thorn allegedly said:
> > The following table shows cypherpunks subscription activity
> > for the period 12 Oct 1996 thru 07 January 1996.
> > Interpretation:
> > Unless the reversal of gain/loss in the 5th data row is permanent,
> > c-punks are losing 0.8 bodies per day, or 294 subscribers per year.
> > Actually, the constant high turnover suggests something else:
> > Many people join the list and get back off again due to the high
> > volume and their own personal time constraints.

> As a relatively new subscriber I find the single factor most likely
> to get me to leave is the garbage on the list.
> And a significant portion of the traffic is discussion about that garbage.

So leave, anyway.  When I lived in the Deep South for several years,
during which time I learned some things about the South that were
seriously distorted in the propaganda you get in the North, I began
to cringe every time some Yankee would come down there and say things
like "Ya' know, I don't like the way you people do this or that, or the
way you talk, or the way you exclude outsiders, ....".  Same principle
applies here.  Somebody's always wanting to change things, they say
it's "for the better".  Bullcrap.  I'd like to say you'll find out if
you stick around long enough, but the traffic is rather heavy here,
and I have things to do....

> > Unless Sandy can
> > cut *way* back on the number of posts to the list, i.e. excise a *lot*
> > more postings than just the blatant Spam and "Timmy is a....." posts,
> > it won't make any difference to those people who come and go.

> No.  The blatant spam and "Timmy isa" posts are more annoying
> than the large volume, at least in my case.

The big-time spam problem should be addressed as a technical issue,
not as a censorship issue.  There are many good ideas, and frankly,
if the spammers got *really* serious, hand-editing would *not* work
no matter how hard they tried.  As far as the "Timmy is a..." posts
go, I would *not* want someone hand-censoring or editing these posts
just to remove those annoyances.  I'll bet you can find plenty of
people on cypherpunks who would rather have myself and a handful of
other "pests" removed than worry about the relatively small number
of "Timmy is...." posts. You're not gonna make everyone happy, period.

> > As to the net loss in subscribers, the moderation of the list could
> > have a substantial effect on the number of subscribers short-term,
> > but whatever trend we have here will continue regardless, since the
> > real value and character of the list is not determined by the posts
> > which are removed (unless it were that some of the character and value
> > is going to be removed), but by long-term factors which are to be
> > expected when the principals get older, less involved, and less
> > contentious (like Sandy, wanting to avoid conflict).

> Moderation may actually cause the list to grow at a faster pace.

Just think about how fast Germany grew in the 1930's.  From the ash
heap of defeat to world-class power in what, 3 years?  Amazing, huh?

> While I don't agree with your analysis in the short run, in the long
> run volume on the list will be *the* problem -- just due to the
> growth of the net.  And in the long run, undoubtedly further
> structure will evolve -- there is no meaningful way to deal with say
> 10000 messages per day without some way of structuring the flow.

Like other things in life, such as L.A. freeway traffic, some things
take care of themselves.  If you know how to get around, no problem!

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> The following table shows cypherpunks subscription activity
> for the period 12 Oct 1996 thru 07 January 1996.

[...]

> Totals:    87            655    725          7.5          8.3
> 
> Interpretation:
> 
> Unless the reversal of gain/loss in the 5th data row is permanent,
> c-punks are losing 0.8 bodies per day, or 294 subscribers per year.

[...]

> In effect, Sandy is going to have to cut the number of daily posts
> (to the moderated list) from, say, 100 per day down to, say, 20 or
> 25 per day.  This would certainly be a goal of his, since most of the
> subscriber comments I've heard indicate that even 50 posts per day of
> "relevant political/social commentary" is way too high for them.

Big assumption here.  That the list needs more than the 50 or so people
who are active posters in the first place.

More fear from Mr. Thorn that his own time in the spotlight might be
drawing to a close.  God forbid his captive audience might vanish.

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland