December 2002 comp.lang.* stats

[Erik Max Francis]

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> I agree. Plus, I'm not interested in working THAT hard to be that
> anal-retentive about data which some would argue is still vague enough
> to be
> discounted.

Well, it depends on what you think the data mean.  What you're measuring
is the number of unique posters per hierarchy over some period of time. 
To first order, your figures are probably good for that (provided you're
doing it right, etc.).  Other complicating factors such as spam will
throw a wrench into the validity of the measurable.

But now taking that measurable (unique posters per hierarchy per unit
time) and trying to apply it to something more general and far more
indirect (like the popularity of a language) is a bi-ig step.  There is
surely a _correlation_, but how strong that correlation is and what goes
into it is extremely hard to judge.

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Walk a mile in my shoes / And you'd be crazy too
\__/ Tupac Shakur
    Crank Dot Net / http://www.crank.net/
 Cranks, crackpots, kooks, & loons on the Net.