Re: [STATS] Cypherpunks subscriptions on and off

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

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!