IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> Sat, 08 June 2013 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rpelletier@isoc.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6161321F99AA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 05:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.166
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L0m8O76ojdpw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 05:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp70.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp70.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D16B21F8ADC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 05:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id D6A12148094; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:58:10 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp1.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: rpelletier-AT-isoc.org) with ESMTPSA id AA0FD148089; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:58:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <201306071449.r57EnN5N008971@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:58:10 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AE61343A-070F-4C34-92F8-275DB8116204@isoc.org>
References: <201306070453.r574r3Wt010088@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> <CADnDZ89FjyPtvJQSqY+kmX+1KYkc0jo1mRpOgkfcEnTH6Vbg6A@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA462@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <201306071449.r57EnN5N008971@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:58:16 -0000

On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:

> What the weekly stats really ought to tally up is the readers/postings
> ratio, so that folk would get more direct feedback as to whether what they are
> posting is actually being read...
> 
> My strong suspicion would be that there is strong negative correlation
> between frequency of posts and actual readers of those posts...
> 
> Also, I suspect that many people do not realize that a significant
> chunk of IETF contributers are no longer subscribed to the ietf list
> due to signal to noise ratio concerns...

This list has 2155 subscribers.

Rough, quick count numbers:
56 sent messages week ending 31 May
58 week ending 24 May
87 week ending 3 May
56 week ending 5 April
82 Week ending 8 March
28 week ending 8 Feb
68 week ending 11 Jan

Average:  62 or 3% on the list

Quick glance looks like same people most of the time sending messages

Would be interesting to just report on Last Call mail.  You might find justification 
there by itself to create a Last-Call list.

Ray




> 
> Thomas
>

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status