Euan R. Taylor (etaylor at ca.umanitoba.ccu) wrote:
: This newsgroup seems to be in very poor health, are plant scientists
: allergic to computers? or are there just not many of us around?
According to the arbitron summary posted recently by Una Smith in
bionet.general 175 people were caught actually reading bionet.plants
out of an estimated 6600 who are suspected of doing so:
+-- Position in Arbitron readership listing
| +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
| | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
| | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
| | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
| | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
| | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
V V V V V V V
1461 6600 175 35% 62 122.8 0.01 bionet.plants
Interestingly, the messages per month comes out at about two messages
per day posted to bionet.plants. If you remember Jonathan Marder was
concerned that PHOTOSYN subscribers would not subscribe to
PLANTBIO/bionet.plants because of the (high) traffic on this group.
Dr. A.J.Travis, | JANET: <ajt at uk.ac.sari.rri>
Rowett Research Institute, | other: <ajt at rri.sari.ac.uk>
Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, | phone: +44 (0)224 712751
Aberdeen, AB2 9SB. UK. | fax: +44 (0)224 715349