Print

Print


I do read most posts with enjoyment but like many I live multiple lives and consequently there is not world enough or time to always reply.  I have also as I age decided less is more in this information-addled era.  Thus I am not deeply troubled by the subscription count or posts.  I also assume that most of you wherever you are around this globe and whatever you do also spend a considerable amount of time alone with books.  Bottom line:  this list is a pleasure.

Eugene Schlanger

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 31, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Tom Colket <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Peter:
> 
> I am not so concerned about getting an accurate count of the number of total subscribers to the TSE list. I am concerned about the number of active posters, and the fact that no _new_ people are joining the list (probably because they can't find it, now that the list is "private").
> 
> To show you what I'm talking about, I used the TSE archives to look, month by month, at all the posts for 2013 (Jan 1 - July 30, 2013). 
> 
> Here are the actual statistics:
> 
> Total number of posters in 2013
> 
> 17
> 
> (Jan 1 - July 30, 2013)
> 
> 
> 
> (I realize that the 'tabs' below may now look good in your email browser, but it's the best I can do since I don't know how to make an HTML table)
> 
> 
> Poster                      # posts     % of the total List posts
> --------------              ---------   -------------------------
> Chokh Raj (CR)         422         32
> 
> Peter Montgomery   314         24
> 
> Nancy Gish               148         11
> 
> David Boyd                86          7
> 
> Ken Armstrong          73          6
> 
> Rick Parker                70          5
> 
> Carol Cox                  62          5
> 
> Peter Dillane             60          5
> 
> Tom Colket                31          2
> 
> Richard Seddon         19          1
> 
> John Angell Grant     13          1
> 
> Timothy Materer        7           1
> 
> Tom Gray                   6           0
> 
> Jerome Walsh            3           0
> 
> Vishvesh Obla           2           0
> 
> Eugene Schlanger      2           0
> 
> Robert Summers         1           0
> 
> 
> 
> Total posts              1319        100%
> (Jan 1 - July 30, 2013)
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, just two posters (CR and Peter M) account for over half of all posts this year (56%). Since the start of the year, only 17 people have sent in even one post. Only a dozen people participate at least once a month (on average). 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not even subtracting out the posts that have nothing to do with Eliot!
> 
> That's WAY below critical mass for something that calls itself "The T. S. Eliot Discussion List."
> 
> -- Tom --
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:28:02 +1000
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: The TSE list and "critical mass"
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > 
> > Hey folks
> > 
> > would a self initiated audit be useful? That is everyone sends in a 
> > statement of who is on line.
> > 
> > ie maybe just an avatar
> > or an email address .....
> > depending on how much you want to divulge
> > or more
> > say
> > Peter Dillane, Melbourne Australia, amateur interest, undergraduate degree 
> > with majors in Eng Lit and Language; Thesis on Marlowe; specific Eliot 
> > interest - general; favourite single malt ....etc etc
> > 
> > Cheers Pete
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: The TSE list and "critical mass"
> > 
> > 
> > >I used to send a command to the listserver once in a while to get the 
> > >number
> > > of list subscribers. A few years ago I started getting messages saying 
> > > that
> > > I was not authorized to use the command. The number has been pretty 
> > > steady
> > > at about 250 members since I joined the list until I was denied access to
> > > the information. Maybe it was at the end of last year that Peter M. was
> > > having some trouble with the list. He sent a command and as a side-effect 
> > > he
> > > got the number of members sent back. I remember him writing that the 
> > > number
> > > was about 200.
> > >
> > > The number of list members would have almost no effect on Missouri's
> > > resources. The number of bytes being stored would (number of posts, sizes 
> > > of
> > > the posts, attachments.)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Rick Parker
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:58:35 -0400, Ken Armstrong
> > > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>On 7/30/2013 7:09 AM, Tom Colket wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> A discussion list has to have a critical mass of subscribers or it
> > >>> dies. For many years there was just such a critical mass on the TSE
> > >>> list. Someone would start a topic and others would pick it up and add
> > >>> things (and it wasn't always the exact same people, taking predictable
> > >>> "sides"). But in recent years the erosion of subscribers has became
> > >>> startling. We are now well below critical mass.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Interesting. Are the actual figures available? I believe in the not
> > >>too distant past Tim M has referred to restrictions on resources, both
> > >>virtual and financial, and has asked for listers to make their
> > >>preferences known to MO powers that be. I'm guessing that that hasn't
> > >>much happened.
> > >>
> > >>Ken A
> > >>
> > >>
> > >