At 01:33 PM 2/24/02 +0100 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>> >I would like to suggest that threads usually are started by folks who
decide
>> >to finally change the name of a thread. Conversations here tend to
wander.
>>
>>Yes, Andrea and I were/are the Champions of updating subject headers. To
>>count each of our changed subjects as a "new thread" is basically a flaw in
>>the analysis, IMHO.
>
>Then how, IYHO, should the analysis be carried out? What is your solution
>for removing that what you perceive as a flaw?
The answer of course would be real-time monitoring, where each post is
filed as being either a "brand new" discussion, response, or possibly some
category for "tangential exploration."
I think that's the only way to get data that is more accurate than mere
subject headers. Fortuantely, since I usually leave all previous subject
headers in a subject line for Reference, that probably wouldn't be too
hard.....
Of course, this sort of thing could also be done on the historical data
available, but I think that would be far more boring than trying to do it
with current data....
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Our campaign against international terrorism does not represent some
sort of 'clash of civilizations.' Instead, it is a clash between
civilization and those who would destroy it." -Amb. Richard N. Haass
