> 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.
we once tried to measure the impact by measuring the URL click-through when we released a LM software that was of interest to the NLP community. The email went out to several mailing lists.
However, we didn't set up the experiment correctly (wasn't simultaneous, same URL etc) so the result was highly suspect.
I think someone advertising a conference or software can do the same and it would be a good measure of readership
> 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. ?
> UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/**corpora<http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora>
> Corpora mailing list
> Corpora at uib.no
-- Hieu Hoang Research Associate University of Edinburgh http://www.hoang.co.uk/hieu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3081 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://mailman.uib.no/public/corpora/attachments/20130821/4d19ecb2/attachment.txt>