William Crawford <wccrawford / gmail.com> wrote:
>unknown wrote:

Whats with the "unknown" attribute?  Are you afraid to associate
my name with the statements I make?

>> "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue / gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Please don't pretend that either the forum or Usenet is prime here.
>>
>> Once you gateway it to Usenet, that *is* prime.  There are
>> instantly *millions* of potential readers, plus it is archived
>> and will be read by people decades from today.  Usenet eclipses
>> anything a mailing list or a web forum is contributing,
>> regardless of how it all began.
>
>You do realize there are many, many, many more people that know how to
>use a web browser than know how to use usenet?

Which doesn't mean that any significant percentage of them read
Web forums, much less that particular forum.

>Google indexes
>ruby-forum.com.  It is MUCH easier and MUCH more useful to search google
>than search usenet if you want answers about Ruby.  You will not only
>get posts from this forum, but also from the rest of the internet.  So
>from your own argument, the forum is prime.

For the google search engine, they are exactly equal.

>In reality, the mailing list is prime.

Not even close.

>It is apparently what most of
>the regulars use, and they are the ones that answer the majority of the
>questions.

That means it is likely to be high on the list for those who
read what is posted within a day or two of it being posted.

>When you want an answer, the number of potential readers
>does not matter.

You seem willing to make just about *any* damned fool statement,
regardless of what it means...

That is trivially false.

>Only the number of potential (correct) responders
>does.  That majority of those are on the mailing list.

And the reverse?  For those who wish to post useful answers?
The vast majority of readers they target will not be on the
mailing list.

Regardless, where the "majority" of those potentially correct
responders are located is not significant for someone who wants
an answer.  They still want maximum exposure, simply because the
one correct answer that they understand best might come from a
minority.

>Now, everyone keeps going on about 'if you want an answer, you'll have
>to post in a certain way'.  This is not true.  I have not seen 1 post on
>here that failed to get an answer because someone top-posted.  I've seen
>plenty of 'don't top post' replies, but the majority of them were tagged
>onto an answer.  If changing the format of your post doesn't change the
>answer, how is the 'wrong way' ineffective?

You are blowing blue smoke.

On *any* forum there are often articles that garner less
response than others simply because the questions are ill
stated, the article is awkwardly formatted, or any number of
similar limiting factors.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd / apaflo.com