TK Sung wrote:
>"Irene Waters" wrote in message
>news:zr2eb.8126$RW4.5068@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> This particular search is required for an RFD.
>> Did you know this?
>>
>Nope, I didn't know that. I can't begin to imagine why such irrelevant
>search statistics would be required, and I'll be happy to debate anybody who
>insists on it. (I don't see any current RFDs with such statistics).
It isn't "required". Recommended, perhaps, but not required. Traffic
volume is only an indirect measure of reader interest levels. The
ideal is still the number of readers, which, yes, the CFV will
indicate. The main purpose for such a search would be directed
more at assertions regarding traffic volume as an issue unto itself.
For example, someone may claim that the volume in an existing group
is excessive. The best way to back that claim is to either get a
figure for the amounts of complaints, or count the total amount
of traffic and the amount of traffic in question and see if the
magnitude is considered high (e.g. in rec.* groups 100/day is high)
and if it is relatively high (e.g. 50% of traffic is on an isolatable
topic space). Traffic stats are not so good for more general
commentary. A (real) example, someone claims that there is a lot of
a particular type of music fandom discussion going on spread out
amongst a lot of groups, and that a general group would be a good
thing. Sure enough there's a lot of traffic and a lot of readers,
but the proposal fails. In that situation, the traffic analysis
wasn't really used to address any reader concerns, anything that
in itself could be considered a rationale for a new group, and
was rather being used as a rationale directly.
ru
--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
