Print

Print


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
>> >>
>> >>
>> > 
>