> On 8/21/2013 7:08 AM, Trevor Jenkins wrote:
>
>> The single number doesn't mean anything.
>>
>
> I agree with that statement. What I believe people want to know is
> the impact of various lists relative to other methods of sharing
> their thoughts with colleagues in related fields.
>
> The simple answer is that nobody really knows how to measure impact
> in any absolute sense. Even relative impact is extremely difficult
> to measure. And any numbers that are generated are suspect.
>
>
> On 8/21/2013 6:24 AM, Hieu Hoang wrote:
>
>> imo, it is an imperfect but useful bit of information to gauge the
>> relative popularity of the mailing list. In Oct 2010, i asked the same
>> question for some popular NLP/SMT mailing list:
>> Corpora list : 3600
>> EAMT - 792
>> Moses - 630
>>
>
> But what is the relative percentage of email that subscribers actually
> (a) read, (b) delete within N seconds of being opened, (c) do anything
> about -- such as reply to, click on a URL, use as a starting point for
> further searches, etc. ?
>
>
As with all email lists, (a) is typically a fairly stable function of:
- list age (which we know) - list quality (it's opt-in and highly specialised, so likely very high; certainly comparable to e.g. EAMT, Moses lists) - list member count (the unknown)
(b), and its counterpart (b1) - open the mail, vary depending on the subject line and time of day.
(c) is often only really useful to measure per-email, because the factors that govern what one does with an email depend on that particular email; the action rate of a list when there are multiple senders on diverse subtopics is not too useful to know.
Leon -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2576 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://mailman.uib.no/public/corpora/attachments/20130821/aaf06bbc/attachment.txt>