December 2002 comp.lang.* stats
John Roth
johnroth at ameritech.net
Sun Jan 26 08:15:22 EST 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Sun Jan 26 08:15:22 EST 2003
- Previous message (by thread): December 2002 comp.lang.* stats
- Next message (by thread): December 2002 comp.lang.* stats
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
"Peter Hansen" <peter at engcorp.com> wrote in message news:3E335278.8F2DD2E8 at engcorp.com... > Erik Max Francis wrote: > > > > Peter Hansen wrote: > > > > > Spam is probably a problem best ignored. It would probably > > > affect all those groups equally anyway. > > > > Actually, that's one of the problems with his collapsing hierarchies > > into a single number. To first order, spammers would probably post to > > every comp.* group with the same frequency. So if a hierarchy contains > > six groups, the raw numbers will likely be overcounting spam by > > approximately a factor of six, as compared to a solitary newsgroup. > > I would think that removing unique posters would eliminate a lot > of this effect, as the same poster would be sending to each newsgroup. > Yes, many use random addresses... but don't they still send in bulk? > > > To second order, there's probably an additional effect of newsgroups > > with names that sort lexicographically early getting more spam, since > > more spammers do their spams sequentially, and those that get forcibly > > stopped will be less likely to hit comp.lang.z than comp.lang.a. > > I strongly doubt anyone gets stopped fast enough to prevent their > spamming one comp.lang group shortly after they've done another one. > > In the end, my comment should really be taken as "spam is a small > enough issue, in my experience, to be ignored in the results as > mere noise". I readily admit my experience is limited to c.l.p > and several other groups *not* in the c.l. hierarchy, so maybe > some of those other groups get *much* more spam than c.l.p, but > I sort of doubt it. Maybe someone will take the time to calculate > actual numbers to prove or disprove this point. I wouldn't bother > though. > > -Peter I've been amused by this subthread, since I've almost never seen spam in any of the comp.* groups I frequent. Maybe this has to do with my using a paid service that does an excellent job of de-spamming their newsfeed. If someone wants to run the script against, say, Supernews, I doubt if the numbers would be significantly different. But maybe they would be. John Roth
- Previous message (by thread): December 2002 comp.lang.* stats
- Next message (by thread): December 2002 comp.lang.* stats
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list