fascinating article on postgresql mailing lists
http://citusdata.com/blog/57-postgresql-full-text-search
merlin
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Merlin Moncure escribió:
/messages/by-id/511164EF.8010600@dalibo.info
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Le lundi 11 fￜvrier 2013 ￜ 08:03 -0600, Merlin Moncure a ￜcrit :
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
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Le lundi 11 fￜvrier 2013 ￜ 17:20 +0100, Vincent Veyron a ￜcrit :
Le lundi 11 fￜvrier 2013 ￜ 08:03 -0600, Merlin Moncure a ￜcrit :
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
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:17 PM, "Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org> wrote:
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.
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.
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
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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> wrote:
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.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.
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.
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.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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 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.
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.
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
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
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
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general