More usenet usage statistics, by programming language

[Laura Creighton]

> >
> Actually, I think a better measure might be counting distinct posters with a
> minimum of two posts. This would indicate interest (e.g., dialog or more than
> one question) more strongly than a single post, IWT. A table including both
> would be interesting. I agree on time interval vs flat latest count also.
> I guess you might expect spikes around significant announcements (good or bad
> )
> which could skew results from different languages.
> 
> Another interesting measure might be the aggregate volume of unquoted text vs
>  total,
> and those numbers divided by number of unique posters, for average level of i
> nterest.
> 
> Regards,
> Bengt Richter

If Bengt Richter spends all day answering questions on
comp.lang.python, then other people, who would happily have posted if
Bengt had been sick and couldn't answer, will remain silent because
Bengt is doing a perfectly adequate job.  The faster Bengt types, the
lower the volume.

If we want to make the volume in this newsgroup go up, just post something
that is _wrong_.  Or claim that vi is superior to emacs or vice-versa.
Or ask people what their favourite <anything> is.  Or write a note
claiming that Lisp is only used by fools and the mentally unstable and
make sure that the readers of comp.lang.lisp hear about it. <wink>

Laura Creighton