Subject:
|
Re: 1 new or 3?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:07:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
219 times
|
| |
|
|
Umm ... Mate, what was the original question for then? ;-)
My thinking is that it is probably better for the lugnet server not to
bother with low traffic newsgroups at all. It would mean that the server
doesn't have to worry about tracking them.
--
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:FvoJ69.H20@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Geoffrey Hyde writes:
> > Yes, but since most newsgroups have the welcome to <newsgroup> and the
> > Lugnet terms of use messages posted to it on startup, there would be • little
> > or no point in considering these two messages as traffic. :-)
>
>
> I think you're agreeing with me??? That's kind of what I am saying too.
>
>
> > Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message
> > news:Fvny3x.186@lugnet.com...
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > > In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > > I just posted to loc.ch.zh.zue... a group that had no posts to it • other
> > than
> > > > > the two starter posts back in 1998.
> > > > >
> > > > > So that is post #3 and 1 new one in the last 24 hours right?
> > > > >
> > > > > But the traffic report page shows **3** new posts. Not so. Bug or • feature?
> > > >
> > > > Somewhere in between a bug and a feature. The traffic page considered • the
> > > > group as empty when there were only 2 posts because it disregards • groups
> > with
> > > > only 2 posts. When the count jumped from 2 to 3, the traffic page saw • it
> > as
> > > > no longer empty and has now begun tracking it. If a fourth message • appears,
> > > > it would be compared to the 3, not to 0.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sounds like kind of a misfeature :-), you must have a hard coded • "ignore
> > if
> > > 2"... so just hack in another hard coding "if this is a jump from 2 to
> > > something, pretend you weren't ignoring the 2's and just show • (something-2) new
> > > instead"
> > >
> > > ++lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: 1 new or 3?
|
| (...) (URL)My thinking is that it is probably better for the lugnet server not to (...) I don't know how it is implemented, but it really shouldn't be much of an overhead :) Besides, not showing low-traffic groups on the traffic page is a great way (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: 1 new or 3?
|
| (...) To see if we can get the erroneous report of 3 "new" posts to a low traffic group corrected to only be one "new" post. The other two are not "new" they are just an artifact of the filtering being applied. (...) That would be bad. IMHO. (24 years ago, 5-Jun-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
