Prev: generic interface with procedure in used module
Next: 5.0d0+tan(phi) vs 5+tan(phi)
From: Terence on 6 Jan 2010 17:34
Note the decline in monthly posting counts from 2009 on.
And a very large proportion that year is spam.
The trend downwards is statistically significant.

I infer: "driven off by the spam".

year jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov
dec
2009: 1018 1178 1516 1168 959 723 701 682 846 971 916 661
2010: 72

Seriously: if you, the readers, are fed up, then try posting on

http://groups.google.com/group/fortran_

And you can double-post (ne each) if you want to make your point or
get a posting seen and commented on, free of spam.
From: Erik Toussaint on 6 Jan 2010 20:16
Terence wrote:
> Note the decline in monthly posting counts from 2009 on.
> And a very large proportion that year is spam.

So, what you are saying, is, that there is a decline in spam? ;)


> The trend downwards is statistically significant.
>
> I infer: "driven off by the spam".
>
> year jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov
> dec
> 2009: 1018 1178 1516 1168 959 723 701 682 846 971 916 661
> 2010: 72
>
> Seriously: if you, the readers, are fed up, then try posting on
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/fortran_
>
> And you can double-post (ne each) if you want to make your point or
> get a posting seen and commented on, free of spam.

I won't repeat what has been said many times before about using a
separate news reader to connect to an NNTP server for your access to
Usenet, but I do want to say this. Many people, including myself, use
that route to follow this, and other, newsgroups, and as a consequence
hardly see any spam, if at all. If all those NNTP service providers can
filter out the spam, shouldn't the mighty Google be able to do the same?
All that is needed is the will to do so, but apparently this will is not
present at the moment. Should you really be steering people towards
their forums if they don't care about the amount of spam that is posted
on the net?

Erik.
From: Phillip Helbig---undress to reply on 7 Jan 2010 05:38
In article
<1f3a93cd-1875-4c87-805d-0372e85ca6eb(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Terence <tbwright(a)cantv.net> writes:

> Note the decline in monthly posting counts from 2009 on.
> And a very large proportion that year is spam.
> The trend downwards is statistically significant.

Rubbish.

> I infer: "driven off by the spam".
>
> year jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov
> dec
> 2009: 1018 1178 1516 1168 959 723 701 682 846 971 916 661
> 2010: 72

What do we see? About 900--1000 posts per month, with expected drops
during the summer and winter holidays.

> Seriously: if you, the readers, are fed up, then try posting on
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/fortran_

Give me a break. Get a REAL newsreader. See the quote of the day
below.

> And you can double-post (ne each) if you want to make your point or
> get a posting seen and commented on, free of spam.

Most people tend to ignore those who are SHOUTING, not listen to them.
What is "double-post"?

--
The basic functionality of Google Groups is lower, and its implementation far
more ignorant, than, say, a 1990 version of Majordomo.

---RobertPlamondon at http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet/

From: robin on 7 Jan 2010 09:48
"Terence" <tbwright(a)cantv.net> wrote in message
news:1f3a93cd-1875-4c87-805d-0372e85ca6eb(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
| Note the decline in monthly posting counts from 2009 on.
| And a very large proportion that year is spam.
| The trend downwards is statistically significant.
|
| I infer: "driven off by the spam".
|
| year jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov
| dec
| 2009: 1018 1178 1516 1168 959 723 701 682 846 971 916 661
| 2010: 72

Spam didn't start until end September, and since then,
postings increased.

In any case, there are only 7 days so far in January,
so you are comparing 7 days with 31 days.
Not only that, folks are away on holidays,
so 72 means nothing.


From: Gordon Sande on 7 Jan 2010 10:09
On 2010-01-07 10:48:14 -0400, "robin" <robin_v(a)bigpond.com> said:

> "Terence" <tbwright(a)cantv.net> wrote in message
> news:1f3a93cd-1875-4c87-805d-0372e85ca6eb(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> | Note the decline in monthly posting counts from 2009 on.
> | And a very large proportion that year is spam.
> | The trend downwards is statistically significant.
> |
> | I infer: "driven off by the spam".
> |
> | year jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov
> | dec
> | 2009: 1018 1178 1516 1168 959 723 701 682 846 971 916 661
> | 2010: 72
>
> Spam didn't start until end September, and since then,
> postings increased.
>
> In any case, there are only 7 days so far in January,
> so you are comparing 7 days with 31 days.
> Not only that, folks are away on holidays,
> so 72 means nothing.

I have seen more discussion of spam than of spam! Now and then there will be a
burst of the sort of ads that I see on some other newsgroups. All the spam
complaints seen to come from folks who use Google. The implication, often
stated explicitly here as well, is that regular ISPs offering UseNet have
some sort of spam control somewhere along the propagation chain that is
missing from Google. The obvious cure is to not use Google which has the
additional benefit of avoiding its interface which seems to draw as many
complaints as does its spam. (Perhaps Google thinks it has to archive the
spam as well as the regular content so they will not chnage their policies.)

Perhaps the spam removal filters should also remove the complaints about
the spam!


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: generic interface with procedure in used module
Next: 5.0d0+tan(phi) vs 5+tan(phi)