Noise and the Nature of Mailing Lists
At 3:55 AM 1/31/96, Laszlo Vecsey wrote:
FYI the traffic on the PGPdomo list has been very low lately. I haven't received a message from the list in a few days. But then again there is even more 'noise' on that list because every message I've seen posted on it talks about PGPdomo, the mailing list, getting PGP software to work, etc.. From what I've seen people just sign up to test it out with a test message, and thats about it. Even with mkpgp for pine its still a bit inconvenient to use, I think thats the reason for the low-traffic.
I've been on a fair number of mailing lists, and they basically divide up into two broad categories: * Category I -- Busy, contentious, lively, high volume, prone to noise bursts, vibrant, interesting lists. Above critical mass. Like a crowded bar, with lively debate and always something happening. * Category II -- Quiet, polite, quiet, low volume, moribun, quiet, dead lists. Below critical mass. Like an empty bar, with only a few drunks staring into their beers. * Category III -- Working mailing lists, for folks working on a specific project or Internet standard. These can be low-volume with good signal, because they are not primarily social discussion groups but are, instead, simple communication-of-information groups. The Cypherpunks list is an obvious Category I list, and has been since it was started in October of 1992. It has noisy periods, times of flaming, but also a "critical mass" of new thought which obviously keeps it going, and even growing. If we are doing everything wrong, it's hard to tell from a "who cypherpunks" query sent to majordomo@toad.com. Other lists I have been on have been much quieter, averaging a few messages a day (or even less). On these lists, there is just no life. The occasional pleas for help are like cries from someone stranded on the Greenland icesheets. And I have seen formerly vibrant lists die off, becoming Category II groups, or worse. One list I used to be an extremely active contributor to was the "Extropians" list, which perhaps a dozen or so of you reading this message are now still on. The history of it is a long and involved one, which I won't get into, for various good reasons. But around late 1993 there were many of the same concerns about "noise" as people are now expressing. For most of 1993 the daily posting volume on the Extropians list exceeded the volume here on Cypherpunks. So various things were tried (they had the advantage of not being an anarchy, and the disadvantage of not being an anarchy). Ratings systems for posters and their posts, even attempts to impose "quotas" on the number of posts a person could write. All well-intentioned, but all failures and cures that were worse than the problem. By early 1994, both Perry Metzger and I had left the Extropians list, for our own reasons. No doubt the list got quieter. No doubt the volume went down. However, and current subscribers will no doubt jump in and give their views, I hear that the current volume of messages is less than one per day, with--according to my sources--sometimes days between messages. (I also hear that the Extropians are devoting more of their energy to their magazine, which may also be a factor.) Note that several well-intentioned efforts to create sub-lists of the Cypherpunks list have mostly failed. The DC-Net list, the lib-tech list, etc. I suspect that the "Remailer Operators" list is viable because it's a Category III working group list. Digest like CP-Lite I don't characterize as a separate kind of list. As to the new encrypted list, I wish them well. I doubt that list will do real well, though, because of the critical mass problem. And remember, it's a whole lot easier using filters and reading tools to reduce the volume of messages on an active group than it is to get an inactive group up to critical mass! --Tim Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) writes:
And remember, it's a whole lot easier using filters and reading tools to reduce the volume of messages on an active group than it is to get an inactive group up to critical mass!
Yes, definitely! I'm sending this note to remind people that they can also read Cypherpunks via NNTP, at nntp://nntp.hks.net/hks.lists.cypherpunks/ There are several programs that can read newsgroups on other NNTP servers. I use Emacs Gnus, which has an excellent set of filtering tools. Cypherpunks would be a lot harder to read without it. It'd be easier to read if everyone preserved the References: headers, btw. (thanks, hks.net!)
participants (2)
-
Nelson Minar -
tcmay@got.net