 |
 |
A positive note, Schlanger! It could be so to the large majority, I suppose, who choose not to 'risk' participation. CR ________________________________ From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:49 AM Subject: Re: The TSE list and "critical mass" 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >