Thread: fascinating article on postgresql mailing lists
Merlin Moncure escribi=F3: > http://citusdata.com/blog/57-postgresql-full-text-search http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/511164EF.8010600@dalibo.info --=20 =C1lvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Le lundi 11 février 2013 à 08:03 -0600, Merlin Moncure a écrit : > http://citusdata.com/blog/57-postgresql-full-text-search > I find it strange that 'Probability that a new thread gets a response' sits below 60% for the 'general' list In my mailbox, which holds the last 2628 messages from the list, I counted 70 posts without a follow-up; so 3% really Also, seeing Tom Lane as a first poster seems rather strange; it's certainly not the case in 'general' ? -- Salutations, Vincent Veyron http://gdlc.fr/logiciels Applications de gestion des sinistres assurance et des contentieux juridiques
Le lundi 11 février 2013 à 17:20 +0100, Vincent Veyron a écrit : > Le lundi 11 février 2013 à 08:03 -0600, Merlin Moncure a écrit : > > http://citusdata.com/blog/57-postgresql-full-text-search > > > > I find it strange that > > 'Probability that a new thread gets a response' > > sits below 60% for the 'general' list > > In my mailbox, which holds the last 2628 messages from the list, I > counted 70 posts without a follow-up; so 3% really > Oups... scratch this. these messages make up somewhere around 650 threads, so really it's a bit over 11% posts without an answer. Still a lot less than the 40+ % claimed in the article. -- Salutations, Vincent Veyron http://gdlc.fr/logiciels Applications de gestion des sinistres assurance et des contentieux juridiques
Vincent Veyron wrote: > I find it strange that > > 'Probability that a new thread gets a response' > > sits below 60% for the 'general' list This seems indeed too low. I happen to collect these messages in a database since mid-2005. As a point of comparison, the numbers I get until today for pgsql-general are 3348 messages that appear to be outside of any thread (no "In-Reply-To" field or "References" field that points to it, and subject does not start with "Re:"), the total number of messages being 110233, in 19855 distinct threads. So at least in this time period, I can't see how it could be said that there's a 40% probability of not getting a reply. If we consider that there are 3348 failed attempts at spawning a thread vs 19855 successful attempts, the ratio would be about 6:1, or a 17% probability of getting no public response. Best regards, -- Daniel PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage: http://www.manitou-mail.org
On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:17 PM, "Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org> = wrote: > Vincent Veyron wrote: >=20 >> I find it strange that=20 >>=20 >> 'Probability that a new thread gets a response'=20 >>=20 >> sits below 60% for the 'general' list >=20 > This seems indeed too low. >=20 > I happen to collect these messages in a database since mid-2005. As a = point > of comparison, the numbers I get until today for pgsql-general are = 3348 > messages that appear to be outside of any thread (no "In-Reply-To" = field or > "References" field that points to it, and subject does not start with = "Re:"), > the total number of messages being 110233, in 19855 distinct threads. >=20 > So at least in this time period, I can't see how it could be said that > there's a 40% probability of not getting a reply. If we consider that = there > are 3348 failed attempts at spawning a thread vs 19855 successful = attempts, > the ratio would be about 6:1, or a 17% probability of getting no = public > response. >=20 Welcome to the perception of the outsider. I am in infrequent poster = here, but in my 6 years of doing PostgreSQL for Mac, I get 3-4 emails a = week asking for help on PostgreSQL issues that contain some variation of = the phrase 'I posted to a PostgreSQL <forum/mailinglist/channel> and got = no response'. Considering that I monitor many of those same venues, I = can honestly say that I have almost never seen the original posts, even = upon further looking.=20 I suspect there are many reasons. Anecdotal evidence hints to me that = in many cases, that phrase so oft repeated is just a cover. They didn't = post, for fear of ridicule, and are going private to avoid public = embarrassment. Articles like this do much the same, and serve only to = create more fear that the mailing lists are useless. Given that, while it is good to be aware of things like this article, I = would not put too much faith in either the numbers or the conclusions. = In my time around the community, there is no more welcoming community = surrounding an active, healthy Open Source Software project out there. D
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Andrew Satori <dru@druware.com> wrote: > > On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:17 PM, "Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org> wr= ote: > >> Vincent Veyron wrote: >> >>> I find it strange that >>> >>> 'Probability that a new thread gets a response' >>> >>> sits below 60% for the 'general' list >> >> This seems indeed too low. >> >> I happen to collect these messages in a database since mid-2005. As a po= int >> of comparison, the numbers I get until today for pgsql-general are 3348 >> messages that appear to be outside of any thread (no "In-Reply-To" field= or >> "References" field that points to it, and subject does not start with "R= e:"), >> the total number of messages being 110233, in 19855 distinct threads. >> >> So at least in this time period, I can't see how it could be said that >> there's a 40% probability of not getting a reply. If we consider that th= ere >> are 3348 failed attempts at spawning a thread vs 19855 successful attemp= ts, >> the ratio would be about 6:1, or a 17% probability of getting no public >> response. >> > > > Welcome to the perception of the outsider. I am in infrequent poster her= e, but in my 6 years of doing PostgreSQL for Mac, I get 3-4 emails a week a= sking for help on PostgreSQL issues that contain some variation of the phra= se 'I posted to a PostgreSQL <forum/mailinglist/channel> and got no respons= e'. Considering that I monitor many of those same venues, I can honestly s= ay that I have almost never seen the original posts, even upon further look= ing. > > I suspect there are many reasons. Anecdotal evidence hints to me that in= many cases, that phrase so oft repeated is just a cover. They didn't post= , for fear of ridicule, and are going private to avoid public embarrassment= . Articles like this do much the same, and serve only to create more fear = that the mailing lists are useless. > > Given that, while it is good to be aware of things like this article, I w= ould not put too much faith in either the numbers or the conclusions. In m= y time around the community, there is no more welcoming community surroundi= ng an active, healthy Open Source Software project out there. Agreed. Note that if someone posts asking a question but fails to give any useful context I can use to help I'll often ignore the post. OTOH posts where the user has obvious tried a variety of things and presents a good explanation of the problem I'll often reply if it's an area I know about.
On 02/11/2013 03:02 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> >> >> Welcome to the perception of the outsider. I am in infrequent poster here, but in my 6 years of doing PostgreSQL forMac, I get 3-4 emails a week asking for help on PostgreSQL issues that contain some variation of the phrase 'I postedto a PostgreSQL <forum/mailinglist/channel> and got no response'. Considering that I monitor many of those same venues,I can honestly say that I have almost never seen the original posts, even upon further looking. >> >> I suspect there are many reasons. Anecdotal evidence hints to me that in many cases, that phrase so oft repeated is justa cover. They didn't post, for fear of ridicule, and are going private to avoid public embarrassment. Articles likethis do much the same, and serve only to create more fear that the mailing lists are useless. >> >> Given that, while it is good to be aware of things like this article, I would not put too much faith in either the numbersor the conclusions. In my time around the community, there is no more welcoming community surrounding an active,healthy Open Source Software project out there. > > Agreed. Note that if someone posts asking a question but fails to give > any useful context I can use to help I'll often ignore the post. OTOH > posts where the user has obvious tried a variety of things and > presents a good explanation of the problem I'll often reply if it's an > area I know about. And then there are those that post to the list without subscribing and are held up in the moderator queue. > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@gmail.com
On 2/11/2013 11:17 AM, Daniel Verite wrote: > I happen to collect these messages in a database since mid-2005. As a point > of comparison, the numbers I get until today for pgsql-general are 3348 > messages that appear to be outside of any thread (no "In-Reply-To" field or > "References" field that points to it, and subject does not start with "Re:"), > the total number of messages being 110233, in 19855 distinct threads. except for all the people that start a new thread by replying to an existing message, so their new message has a 'in reply to' header.... and the people who reply to digests and leave all kinda garbage headers. and the replies that aren't properly threaded. and.... email is just too chaotic to get useful statistics from. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast