In news.groups.proposals Rob Kelk <robkelk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> As for r.a.a.games, I do not recall there being a single on-topic post
> to that group in all of 2007. (I am not certain that there were no such
> posts, only that I do not recall any.) I sup****t removal of that group
> as well.
I'm in the same boat as Rob Kelk. I don't remember seeing anything
on topic in raa.games for quite a while. Given that, I'm inclined
to sup****t the removal of raa.games.
> I have no opinion on r.a.a.models.
raa.models does occasionally get traffic, but it's been very
s****adic over the past year. 3 years ago the proposal would
have elicited numerous responses. I'm actually quite surprised
by the deathly silence, when I think about it that way.
However, there was one regular that did comment in pre-RFD
discussion, and said he wasn't opposed to the removal.
Hardly statistically useful, but it didn't elicit a response,
either. Someone else said most of the regulars moved to a
web board.
Rob Maxwell's traffic analysis pretty much sums up the
situation. I concur with his *****sment that most of the
traffic is marketplace-related (RAA has a designated marketplace
group, so these are off topic in .models). Further I count
about 10 on-topic postings through the past year, and about
half got 1 or 2 responses. There's more traffic there than
in the other groups in the removal list, but I haven't heard a
peep from the readers since this proposal went official. While
it's true that there are fewer readers of the models group
than the music group (10% vs 20%, respectively, relative to
raa.misc), that's still enough that one of them should have
seen the proposal and commented. OK, that does suggest
the group is dead, too.
We may get something over the weekend, so I'm not going
to assume anything until next week.
I'd like to point out something one of the pre-RFD participants
said, and I concur with his observation. The reader****p of
raa.models did tend to be an isolated group. I mean, the
bulk of the regulars there were not as active on any of
the other raa.* groups, including .misc. Whatever traffic
they had would not have moved and did not move to raa.misc
had the group died. Apparently the same can be said about
the relation****p with the rec.models group(s). I don't
know how to balance this observation about reader****p
identity against the motivation for removing the group.
I guess it comes down to "zero strongly identifying users
is still zero users".
ru
|
