Original Usenet thread from alt.ascii-art, started 10 Feb 1995.
_ _ _ _ _ _ | | | |___ ___ _ __ ___| |_ / \ _ __ ___| |__ (_)_ _____ | | | / __|/ _ \ '_ \ / _ \ __| / _ \ | '__/ __| '_ \| \ \ / / _ \ | |_| \__ \ __/ | | | __/ |_ / ___ \| | | (__| | | | |\ V / __/ \___/|___/\___|_| |_|\___|\__| /_/ \_\_| \___|_| |_|_| \_/ \___|
PMR.BAT ANSI Dos Prompt changer (1/1
alt.ascii-art
· 12 messages · 10 Feb 1995 - 26 Feb 1995
> Please take this to a binary newgroup. It DOES not belong in this newsgroup
its an ascii prompt maker, it belongs here, dick... its not a very good
one but, it is one nonetheless..
----
http://www.cc.columbia.edu/~mrr18/
Please do not oe post binaries to this newsgroup. They do not belong here. There is an alt.ascii-art.binaries ..... please use it. Charles Rose Internet Manager RBBS Net 910
In article <950...@delphi.com>, ros...@delphi.com (Charles Rose) writes... >Please do not oe post binaries to this newsgroup. They do not belong here. >There is an alt.ascii-art.binaries ..... please use it. Nope, no alt.ascii-art.binaries newsgroup here. Besides, an occasional binary is not going to make the group fall apart. There have been only two posts of binaries in the last week, which must total somewhere around 300 posts? That's less than 1% -- why worry so much about it? BTW, these most recent two binary postings have been the *only* ones I've seen in months of watching this group. -- James Marshall 157...@ucis.vill.edu mar...@monet.vill.edu
Bob Allison (bob...@wwa.com) wrote: : ros...@delphi.com (Charles Rose) writes... : > : >Please do not oe post binaries to this newsgroup. They do not belong here. : >There is an alt.ascii-art.binaries ..... please use it. : You are refering to alt.binaries.pictures.ascii of course. The one : problem with a.b.p.a is that it has low propogation, so few people see it. Here are the latest statistics - including propagation levels: -------------------------------------------------------------------- +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide. | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all | | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month) | | | | | | +-- Recent traffic (megabytes per month) | | | | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage | | | | | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr | | | | | | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders | | | | | | | who read this group. V V V V V V V 85000 48% 1255 3.6 9% 0.02 1.2% alt.ascii-art 16000 36% 51 0.1 58% 0.00 0.3% alt.ascii-art.animation 32000 39% 131 0.4 39% 0.01 0.5% alt.binaries.pictures.ascii 31000 54% 349 1.5 19% 0.03 0.4% rec.arts.ascii SOURCE: From: rei...@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) Newsgroups: news.lists Subject: USENET Readership report for Jan 95 Date: 1 Feb 1995 09:34:36 -0800 -------------------------------------------------------------------- : As to posting to binaries to alt.ascii-art, it has been done as long : as I con recall. The reasons are that (1) the percentage of binary : postings are low, and (2) most of us do not make a distinction to exclude : binaries as long as they are appropriate to what we are doing here. All binaries and animations should be uuencoded - irrespective of where they are posted otherwise things get munged at many access sites.
> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide. > | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all > | | +-- Share: % of newsrders > | | | who read this group. > 85000 48% 1255 3.6 9% 0.02 1.2% alt.ascii-art > 31000 54% 349 1.5 19% 0.03 0.4% rec.arts.ascii weird. rec.arts.ascii has better propagation but lower readership. my guess is one big reason is alt.ascii-art comes alphabetically near the top of the newsgroup list. --
In article <3hvn6p$t0...@gagme.wwa.com>, Felix Lee <fle...@cse.psu.edu> wrote: > >> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide. >> | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all >> | | +-- Share: % of newsrders >> | | | who read this group. >> 85000 48% 1255 3.6 9% 0.02 1.2% alt.ascii-art >> 31000 54% 349 1.5 19% 0.03 0.4% rec.arts.ascii > >weird. rec.arts.ascii has better propagation but lower readership. >my guess is one big reason is alt.ascii-art comes alphabetically >near the top of the newsgroup list. The two groups are somewhat different. The alt group has more posts, probably due more to what people assume is my delay in getting the articles posted to rec.arts.ascii. Actually I post articles several times a day. But since articles weren't sent from the poster's site, it doesn't give the poster a false sense of immediate propogation as they would get from posting to an unmoderated group. So the alt group gets more posts, which in turn gets more readers. On the other hand, the rec group is probably more popular with busy people who like a group with clear subject lines. I imagine it will always be that way. -- . + ' . * . . ' ) . + . . ____ _____ ___ . _____ . _____ ' .+ . * '. * /___/ /____/ /__ \ ' /___ \ '/____/ . * ' . + . '+ ' . __ + __' . __| |.* ____/ / ____' ' + . .' .' \ \' / / . ,/,/| | ./ _ _/. / __/ ' . ' . + : ' . * '____) )/ /__ ,/ /__| | / / \ \ / /__' _____ _____ _______' __ __ __ /_____//____//________|/_/ /_/'/____/ /____/ /___ \ '/ ___ /./ /'/ /./ / ' .+ . * ' . : __ . + ____/ /. / /. / / / / / / / /. . ' * . + ' . */ /. '/ _ _/ / /'*/ /'/ /./ /*/ /. ' . ' ( . ' : + / /__ / / \ \'./ /__/ / / /_/ /_/ / + ' '. .+ .' * ' ./____/ /_/ /_/ /______/+/_________/ .' . * ' . ' . '+ . ' * . ' ( + '. :
Can you PLEASE help me. I'm trying to find a UUdecoder to decode usenet pics. Do you know where i can ftp to download it? thanks. Bob.
R.J...@ix.netcom.com (Robert Bernardi) wrote: > > > Can you PLEASE help me. > > I'm trying to find a UUdecoder to decode usenet pics. > > Do you know where i can ftp to download it? > > > thanks. > > Bob. > > If you've got windows up, try wncode.zip at csf.colorado.edu in the /econ/incoming directory. It was there the last time I looked. -K
Colin Douthwaite (Col...@equinox.gen.nz) wrote:
: Bob Allison (bob...@wwa.com) wrote:
: :
: : In article <3hvn6p$t0...@gagme.wwa.com>, Felix Lee <fle...@cse.psu.edu> wrote:
: : >
: : >> +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
: : >> | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
: : >> | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
: : >> | | | who read this group.
: : >> 85000 48% 1255 3.6 9% 0.02 1.2% alt.ascii-art
: : >> 31000 54% 349 1.5 19% 0.03 0.4% rec.arts.ascii
: : >weird. rec.arts.ascii has better propagation but lower readership.
: : >my guess is one big reason is alt.ascii-art comes alphabetically
: : >near the top of the newsgroup list.
: Yep, you've got it Felix - alt.ascii-art IS the TOPS ! Yaay !!!
: .
: /:\
: |:|
: |:|
: |:| *_ _ _ _ _ _ _ *
: |:| __ | `_' `-' `_' `-' `_' `-' `_'|
: ,_|:|_, / ) | |
: (Oo / _I_ | LONG LIVE alt.ascii-art |
: +\ \ || __| ^ | | ^
: \ \||___| | | Free & Unmoderated | |
: \ /.:.\-\ | (*) |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ | \^/ |
: |.:. /-----\ | _<">_ | `_' `-' `_' `-' `_' `-' `_'| _(#)_ |
: |___| oOo | o+o \a/ \0 0/ \a/ (=)
: / |<a.a-a>| 0'\a-a/\/ \/\a-a/`0
: |_____\ : / /_^_\ | | /_^_\
: | | \ \:/ || || | | || ||
: | | | | d|_|b_T____________________________T_d|_|b
: \ / | \___ / /
: / | \_____\ / /
: `-' / /
: ________________________/ /___________
: > the alt group gets more posts, which in turn gets more
: > readers. On the other hand, the rec group is probably more
: > popular with busy people who like a group with clear subject
: > lines. I imagine it will always be that way.
: The real test and comparison may come if and when r.a.a becomes an
: unmoderated newsgroup, although the alt. group will suffer from the
: propagation problem which is common to all alt. groups.
: It is clear from the propagation statistics that neither group has a
: monopoly on access sites and reader access must be limited for many
: people. What is unknown is whether the same sites carry both groups
: - if they do then we have a fairly direct comparison of the two.
: Bye,
Someone told me that more people could get to the rec groups, or that the
alt group was restricted somehow, I'm not sure which, but if that's true I
would have thought that the rec group would get more responses and posts
and all. In fact, that is the reason another group I'm in is changing to
a rec group. Go figure.
--
|
|.|
|.|
|\./| .,ad88888ba,.
|\./| .,ad8888888888888a,
. |\./| . d8P"""98888P"""\8888b,
\^.\ |\\.//| /.^/ 9b d8888, `9888B
\--.|\ |\\.//| /|.--/ d88aaa8888888b,,,d888P'
\--.| \ |\\.//| / |.--/ 8888888888888888888888b
\---.|\ |\./| /|.---/ 8888P""98888888888888P'
\--.|\ |\./| /|.--/ "' 988888888888P'
\ .\ |.| /. / 9888888888P'
_ -_^_^_^_- \ \\ // / -_^_^_^_- _ `"98888P'
- -/_/_/- ^ ^ ||| ^ ^ -\_\_\- - `"''
/_ ||| _\ /DDD
/./ | \.\ /D /D
|/ | \| /D /D
/DDD
Bob Allison: > So the alt group gets more posts, which in turn gets more readers. On > the other hand, the rec group is probably more popular with busy people > who like a group with clear subject lines. umm, no, the readership stats don't really depend on how many postings a group gets. as long as a group has some steady stream of traffic, then the samples are accurate. in that readership sample, 1255 people read alt.ascii-art, versus 349 for rec.arts.ascii. this is a _huge_ difference, and I really doubt that r.a.ascii's moderated status makes that much difference. I suspect it's mainly because alt.ascii-art is alphabetically first, so more people stumble onto it first. --
Dan C. Haman (dha...@nmsu.edu) wrote: > Someone told me that more people could get to the rec groups, or > that the alt group was restricted somehow, I'm not sure which, but > if that's true I would have thought that the rec group would get > more responses and posts and all. In fact, that is the reason > another group I'm in is changing to a rec group. Go figure. The Net being a virtual anarchy it is virtually impossible to "go figure" anything logically. Propagation of any newsgroup ultimately depends on the personal decisions of the individual Site Administrators at the hundreds of thousands of Net access sites on Planet Earth. The result is that some sites will carry both alt. groups and rec. groups and other sites will carry only one or the other - that's why you see very variable % propagation figures. Newsgroup readership numbers finally depend on both propagation and how individual Net users regard each newsgroup. In general the readership statistics show that mainstream newsgroups ( The Big 7 - which includes "rec" groups ) do have higher propagation than Alt groups but this conclusion is only very general and the reality is that there is wide variation in propagation levels from group to group. It therefore does NOT follow that change from an Alt to Rec ( or any other mainstream hierarchy ) will automatically ensure either higher propagation or higher readership. ==================================================================== Professor Peabrain advises //////\\ / \ _| _ _ |_ |.|-(.)-(.)+.| \| J |/ \ --- / \ / "####" "Logic is the methodology by which one arrives at the incorrect answer with the utmost confidence" ----??? "Don't forget the most important rule to live by...never believe anything you read on the InterNET." -- Keath Cummings 2/4/93 ====================================================================
Colin Douthwaite <Col...@equinox.gen.nz> wrote: >Dan C. Haman (dha...@nmsu.edu) wrote: > >> Someone told me that more people could get to the rec groups, or >> that the alt group was restricted somehow, I'm not sure which, but >> if that's true I would have thought that the rec group would get >> more responses and posts and all. In fact, that is the reason >> another group I'm in is changing to a rec group. Go figure. I recently did an analysis of propagation comparing all hierarchies of Usenet and alt. Note that Usent is the "big 7" hierarchies: news, comp, sci, soc, rec, talk, and misc. alt is the "altnet" that grew of its own accord because a lot of sites didn't want to carry certain kinds of groups. The big 7 are, technically, "worldwide", although no site is required to carry any group; alt is pretty random. The news.* hierarchy has the best propagation, overall, mainly because it includes the "administrative" groups like news.groups. About 70% of sites, on average, carry groups in news. The six other Usenet hierarchies have average propagation in the 50-65% range. Whil many alt groups are very popular and found all over the place, the complete anarchy represented there (technically, anyone can "create" a group at whim) has led to much less certain propagation of any new alt group. Many new alt groups have very low propagation, no matter how apparent the popularity of the subject. While all of the big commercial online services (netcom, AOL, etc.) tend to create any alt group they get a control message for, beyond that it's much less certain ground, and without a good rationale an alt group won't get created when the sysadmin finally gets around to looking at it. >In general the readership statistics show that mainstream newsgroups >( The Big 7 - which includes "rec" groups ) do have higher >propagation than Alt groups but this conclusion is only very general >and the reality is that there is wide variation in propagation >levels from group to group. It therefore does NOT follow that change >from an Alt to Rec ( or any other mainstream hierarchy ) will >automatically ensure either higher propagation or higher readership. It won't ensure it, but the chances are Very Good that it will. While there are quit a number of sites who carry no alt at all, those who cut out Usenet hierarchies are less common; for instance, alt.games.doom is gone, so I can't be sure, but it looks like agd.* groups were on about 35% of sites; but the relatively new REC.games.doom.* hierarchy is on around 45%. Followups to news.groups & alt.config. -- Daniel A. Hartung | Support the new Arts/Humanities hierarchy! dha...@mcs.com | "I believe we can fly dha...@chinet.chinet.com | on the wings that we create" http//:www.mcs.net/~dhartung/ | -- Melissa Etheridge
Related ASCII art in the Gallery
Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:
Make your own ASCII art
Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.
About this thread.
These messages were posted publicly to the newsgroup
alt.ascii-art
in 1995 and are mirrored here unchanged as part of the Historic Archives – only email addresses are masked.
The artwork and text belong to their original authors: if you copy a piece, keep the artist's initials or signature intact and credit them where you can.
Are you one of the authors? Contact us to get your posts attributed, connected to your artist profile, or removed.
Report this message
Help us keep the archive clean and accurate. Reports are reviewed by a person – nothing is changed automatically.