Mon, 8 Feb 1993 15:53:27 +0100
|
On Mon, 8 Feb 1993 00:49:26 PST Edward Agro <[log in to unmask]> said:
>However, IMHO, - I'm not even a listowner - I suggest that even
>lower-bound information as to the frequency of use of certain classes of
>items (contact lists, say) within list databases would go a ways to
>making the mailing lists more user friendly. It's not a matter of memory
>- that's cheap enough - but more one of indicating to the people who
>keep these items updated whether or not their work is warranted.
As I explained to you in private, this information would have no
statistical meaning. With less than one database search job a day, many
of which may happen to select your article because the search criteria
were too broad or because it happened to contain a particular word, and
with thousands of articles in the archive, you'd be told that some 2-3
users accessed one of your articles, possibly by mistake, in the last 6
months. What is the value of this information? With the amount of
searches in the 1% of the list membership, whatever result you might get,
and assuming the article WAS what the searcher was looking after, would
be totally negligible compared to the amount of people who read or did
not read the article when it was posted.
Eric
|
|
|