Google is still playing with formats/styles in its Groups. In this
latest iteration, it shows what it calls "Group Info," under which it
indicates "Subscribers: 2858" and "Activity: Low activity." Do you
suppose I am correct in assuming that "subscribers" means only those
who use Google Groups to participate?

For several years I have had the idea that there are many more
readers/lurkers than that, even though there are only 50 or so of us
who have so much time on our hands that we can't control our posting
every day. In other words, all the Usenet readers are not in that
2858, right? -aem

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Google is still playing with formats/styles in its Groups. In this
> latest iteration, it shows what it calls "Group Info," under which it
> indicates "Subscribers: 2858" and "Activity: Low activity." Do you
> suppose I am correct in assuming that "subscribers" means only those
> who use Google Groups to participate?
>
> For several years I have had the idea that there are many more
> readers/lurkers than that, even though there are only 50 or so of us
> who have so much time on our hands that we can't control our posting
> every day. In other words, all the Usenet readers are not in that
> 2858, right? -aem
>

Based on my experience with Outlook Express, to subscribe simply means to
have a particular newsgroup show in the list of those I want to see. It does
not mean I've ever posted anything in any particular group. If Google says
there are 2858 subscribers to this group, I'd guess they're referring to
those who are watching it through THEIR service.

On 6 Oct 2006 19:48:27 -0700, "aem" > wrote:

>Google is still playing with formats/styles in its Groups. In this
>latest iteration, it shows what it calls "Group Info," under which it
>indicates "Subscribers: 2858" and "Activity: Low activity." Do you
>suppose I am correct in assuming that "subscribers" means only those
>who use Google Groups to participate?

That has to be the implication. Why else would they give that number?
>
>For several years I have had the idea that there are many more
>readers/lurkers than that, even though there are only 50 or so of us
>who have so much time on our hands that we can't control our posting
>every day.

Well, there certainly are not almost 3,000 people who read rfc
daily.... especially from google. I find google a very boring way to
do usenet. If I was brand new with only google as a news reader, I
probably wouldn't even consider sustaining my presence on usenet.

> In other words, all the Usenet readers are not in that
>2858, right?

I don't understand that statement. You're trying to say there are
more than 3,000 daily lurkers? If so, I don't agree. How can so many
people keep their mouths shut with so many opportunities to make a
statement about something that interests them????

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:39:45 -0700, Abe > wrote:
>
>Not only reading through Google, but actually have clicked the
>subscribe button.

OK, that makes sense. I have subscribed to lots of groups through
google, but I don't read any/many of them on a daily basis (via google
or my own usenet reader).

sf wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2006 19:48:27 -0700, "aem" > wrote:
> Well, there certainly are not almost 3,000 people who read rfc
> daily.... especially from google. I find google a very boring way to
> do usenet. If I was brand new with only google as a news reader, I
> probably wouldn't even consider sustaining my presence on usenet.
>
> > In other words, all the Usenet readers are not in that
> >2858, right?
>
> I don't understand that statement. You're trying to say there are
> more than 3,000 daily lurkers? If so, I don't agree. How can so many
> people keep their mouths shut with so many opportunities to make a
> statement about something that interests them????

Just because you are subscribed, doesn't mean you read the group
everyday or even more than once a week. I'm subscrbed to a group though
google that I read maybe once a month. I just unsubscribed from a
group the significant other mistakenly subscribed to using my account -
a group which I have never read.

-SD-