[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: INFO : Stats for SRH Postings in 1996
Hello,
In an eloquent manner, Global Hindu Electronic Network <ghen@netcom.com>
elucidated:
>On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you please post some statistics after Dec 1995 to lay this argument to
>> rest one way or the other? If the entire file is too large, can you just post
>> the number of posts versus delay for, say Jan and Feb 1996? Thanks.
>>
>
>Namaskar,
>
>Indeed. Here they are
>
>January : 22 sets of postings
>February : 20 sets of postings
>March : 24 sets of postings
>April : 23 sets of postings
>May : 23 sets of postings
>June : 22 sets of postings
>July : 11 sets of postings [so far]
>
>About 27 weeks and 145 sets of postings. Avg. # of postings per week
>5.37
>
>If you need, I will get the stats for Nov. and Dec. in a few days.
>
>Explanation: This means that in January, I cleared postings 22 times,
>once a set of postings is cleared it means that except for the postings
>that require further explanation from the poster, I have no postings in
>the queue
1996 is IRRELEVANT.
I spent much of late 1995 grumbling about the delays.
I had several public mostly 2-way discussions in SRH in late 1995.
I would reply via SRH to a post in SRH, and then it was 3-10 days before my
reply was posted to SRH. The other party would reply and another 3-10 days
before I would see it in SRH.
For awhile, we would try to speed things up by CC:-ing our replies to each
other by e-mail, but then that would cut out replies by third parties, because
both the statement and the opposing reply would appear in the same "set".
THEN, the reorg RFD appeared, I believe in December 1995.
AFTER that, AMAZINGLY :-) , the frequency of "sets" being posted to SRH
increased dramatically.
One might think that the frequency of posting "sets" to SRH increased in order
to counter the claim in the reorg that posting was being done very
infrequently; I couldn't possibly comment. :-)
Please note that:
1) I was totally unaware of the SRV creation discussion.
2) In my debates in SRH in 1995, I took the opposite theological position as
most of the proponents of the subsequent SRH reorg.
3) Therefore, I have clearly no affiliation with the SRH reorg proponents, and
I had no input about the moderator of SRH other than as a reader of SRH.
When I originally read the SRH reorg proposal, I was already dismayed about
the infrequency of posting sets and about the irrelevant and negative posts
that were being allowed on SRH.
Therefore, the SRH reorg proposal looked to me (and still does) as a
beneficial change to SRH.
Since I had no knowledge of anything that might have to do with "personal
vendettas", I SIMPLY EVALUATED THE REORG ON ITS OWN MERITS.
Thus, all claims of "personal vendettas" are irrelevant, because to someone
totally unaware of those incidents, the reorg looked good ON ITS OWN MERITS.
Cheers,
Ken <*>
kstuart@mail.telis.org
"The Dow that can crash is not the eternal Dow." - Lao Stuart
Follow-Ups:
