RE: [STATS] Cypherpunks subscriptions on and off

[Juriaan Massenza <juriaan_massenza@ctp.com>]

Hi Dale,

I am usually lurking cypherpunks, I decided to reply to your message
just to give you an idea of why _I_ subscribed to cypherpunks. (English
is not my first language, not even the second, please forgive me my
grammar monstruosities)

I am very intested in crypto, _application_ of crypto, remailers and
security, I usually trash flames, political/social implication of crypto
and of course commercial emails. Looks like the last 3 categories are
the main topic. I don't have problem in bandwith but I think that if I
was forced to use a phone connection instead of a digital one like I
have now I will unsubscribe to the list since it will not be worth for
me to spend hours in downloading a lot of emails knowing that I will
trash the 90% of them.

I don't want to criticize people who talk all the time about the above
mentioned 3 categories because it is in my understanding that someone is
interested in those and I will remain subscribed to the list just to
pick up the real juice.

Best wishes to all,

Juriaan

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Dale Thorn [SMTP:dthorn@gte.net]
>Sent:	Wednesday, January 08, 1997 4:06 AM
>To:	cypherpunks@toad.com
>Cc:	freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
>Subject:	[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).
>
>