Nope, obviously not "all good" for you. It's slang, so I'm sorry if there was something lost in the translation. It specifically means that its not worth getting worked up over. The sky is falling. :-)
-TH --- In [email protected], "Anatole Tartakovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tim, > Stagnant is definetly not good for developing technology. It is also > unlikely to be "all good". Flexcoders increased 30% in 9 month ( from 7,500 > to 9965) since August of 2007. The number of messages for the first 5 month > increased approx 5% from the year before - even with major release this year > and fewer news last year. In the same time (since August 2007) our Flex > related blogs got sustainable increase of over 100% unique users and that > number is quite higher then the number of flexcoders. Very unlikely given > prominent place Adobe gives to this user group that number of flexcoders > should not increase even faster. > It is either usability problem or we are just lucky. Adobe has to run > extended stats on subscription / unsubscription dynamics and decide what to > do. > Regards, > Anatole > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Tim Hoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > No words to eat man. Those numbers also indicate that there hasn't been > > a sudden explosion in message volume recently. It's been consitant for > > years. So, the need to drastically re-structure because of the Inbox > > doesn't fly. Stagnation, perhaps. Less un-answered questions being > > asked. Anyway, change or not, its all good. > > > > -TH > > > > --- In [email protected] <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, "Doug > > McCune" doug@ wrote: > > > > > > OK, I eat my words in terms of message growth then :) Touche. Thanks > > for > > > those stats. I'd actually be interested in getting access to the raw > > data > > > dump for the entire list to run some analysis, but that's getting off > > topic. > > > > > > Just one point, which has already been brought up, but now that we're > > > looking at #s, here are the #s for flexcomponents (note also that this > > > doesn't discount for cross-posts to flexcoders as well, which I assume > > are a > > > large portion too): > > > > > > Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 > > > 159<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/3300> > > > 153 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/3459> > > > 88<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/3612> > > > 59 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/3700> > > > 45<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/3759> > > > 39 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/3804> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2007 190 > > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/1087> > > > 234 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/1277> > > > 442<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/1511> > > > 149 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/1953> > > > 168<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/2102> > > > 260 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/2270> > > > 103<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/2530> > > > 183 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/2633> > > > 96<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/2816> > > > 119 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/2912> > > > 129<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/3031> > > > 140 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/3160> > > 2006 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 297 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/1> > > > 68<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/298> > > > 211 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/366> > > > 89<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/577> > > > 184 <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/666> > > > 237<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/messages/850> > > > I'm not saying that if you split the group all the small groups will > > follow > > > that fate, but as everyone has mentioned, flexcomponents was > > specifically > > > made to try to keep custom component development out of the main > > flexcoders > > > mailing list, and I don't think anyone will argue that that has > > worked. > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Anatole Tartakovsky < > > > anatole.tartakovsky@ wrote: > > > > > > > Doug, > > > > As far as I know, I am the only one in the NY office who did not > > > > unsubscribe from the group. Looks at the stats ( provided by Tim) or > > just go > > > > to the group page. Also, the number of users if I remember it > > correctly has > > > > been in 9K for at least 6 month - meaning you have the same number > > of > > > > people in and OUT - obviously you need to ask Matt if he has more > > detailed > > > > stats on unsubscribes count. > > > > Regards, > > > > Anatole > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Doug McCune doug@ wrote: > > > > > > > >> Actually, this is worth going back to, because your initial email > > said > > > >> that the group was "stagnant" and has plateaued with the number of > > new users > > > >> and questions. Except your reason for bringing it up is that the > > traffic has > > > >> gotten too much for you to read every message. So clearly the level > > of > > > >> traffic isn't stagnant. Unless what you're saying is that about 6 > > months ago > > > >> the traffic reached a critical level where you couldn't deal with > > the > > > >> traffic but then it stopped growing. > > > >> > > > >> So I guess I'm saying I question the claim that this list is > > "stagnant". > > > >> Almost 10,000 members and an average of 100 messages a day. Are you > > saying > > > >> that these stats have been the same for the past 6 months? And even > > if that > > > >> is true (although I'd like to see numbers before I accept that) > > then I don't > > > >> even necessarily think that this indicates that there's a problem. > > There's a > > > >> simple fact that a ton of questions have already been accurately > > answered by > > > >> this list. I would hope that the archived knowledge of the list > > serves to > > > >> answer more and more questions that newcomers have, meaning they > > don't need > > > >> to post the questions over and over. > > > >> > > > >> What is the real problem? I haven't heard anyone say that the > > traffic on > > > >> this single list has stopped them from asking any questions > > (although I'm > > > >> open to the possibility that this is true, and just hasn't been > > voiced). And > > > >> largely I think that the number of people answering questions has > > remained > > > >> high and the response times are still good. I have heard that the > > traffic > > > >> level has stopped people from reading the questions that others ask > > (I > > > >> certainly skim and sometimes skip entire days). I'd argue that a > > combination > > > >> of self-moderated subject tagging, as well as more aggressive > > pointing > > > >> repeat questions to cached answered (and then tagging the entire > > thread as a > > > >> repeat) will largely solve this problem. > > > >> > > > >> So do you have numbers that indicate the stagnation you are worried > > about? > > > >> > > > >> Doug > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Anatole Tartakovsky < > > > >> anatole.tartakovsky@ wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Matt, > > > >>> Let us review the goal - in the original post I explained that > > single > > > >>> group causes stagnation. If you agree with the numbers and > > reasoning behind > > > >>> it, let us look at the proposition in that light. IMHO, the > > mentioned > > > >>> measures while staying within the same single group would probably > > extend > > > >>> the number of users by 20-30% byhoping to reduce number of posted > > messages > > > >>> by the same percentage - but it is hardly the goal we are trying > > to achieve > > > >>> here. > > > >>> > > > >>> Realistically Adobe should be looking for place public pace to > > exchange > > > >>> ideas and networking as well as getting trivial help. The product > > and > > > >>> community are just too big for one group. Let us split it up and > > let each > > > >>> subgroup speak their own language. I would gladly moderate > > standalone > > > >>> enterprise/j2ee/best practices track. But looking few times a day > > @ the > > > >>> whole stream to fish out what might be related to the topic and > > having some > > > >>> messages falling through the cracks might be not the recommended > > "best > > > >>> practices" solution. > > > >>> > > > >>> Sincerely, > > > >>> Anatole > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Matt Chotin mchotin@ wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hey folks, let's calm down a little here, K? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Alright, based on what I've been seeing people say, here's my > > > >>>> suggestion. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 1) Let's get an FAQ going that can be edited by moderators or > > members of > > > >>>> the community. This will be about common problems that folks run > > into. One > > > >>>> suggestion of course from me would be that we use the Cookbook > > for "how-to" > > > >>>> type questions. But for things that don't seem like they're > > cookbook > > > >>>> appropriate, we can put them in the FAQ. I like the idea of doing > > it in > > > >>>> Buzzword, though Buzzword docs won't come up in Google. Long-term > > I think > > > >>>> the right place might be in whatever we set up in the Adobe > > Developer > > > >>>> Center. But for now how about we just allocate a page off of the > > opensource > > > >>>> wiki. We can pick some moderators who can edit the page and I > > will get them > > > >>>> added so they can take care of it. We can also add the link to > > the FAQ to > > > >>>> the bottom of every email. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 2) Some folks suggested that you either mark in the body or in > > the > > > >>>> subject something that indicates what you're talking about. Seems > > > >>>> reasonable. We could use some of the topics that were being > > suggested. [UX], > > > >>>> [Enterprise], [Data Services] [Announce], etc. We don't need to > > limit this, > > > >>>> but by following a convention of placing the general area of > > discussion, > > > >>>> folks will know if they're going to be capable of getting > > involved in the > > > >>>> thread. The more people follow this convention, the more > > efficient it will > > > >>>> become. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 3) We can get aggressive on the moderation. Rather than just > > scanning > > > >>>> for spam, moderators can actually look at the posts by new users > > and decide > > > >>>> if they meet the general criteria for asking a question. If they > > don't, the > > > >>>> moderator can reject the post and point the user to the forum FAQ > > which has > > > >>>> posting guidelines. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 4) We can update the flexcoders FAQ (which is actually linked at > > the > > > >>>> bottom of every single post) to include the updated posting > > guidelines and > > > >>>> remove the common questions section so that the forum FAQ is only > > about > > > >>>> forum etiquette and the coding FAQ is about the actual problems. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> If this sounds OK then what we need are the two kinds of > > moderators: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 1. moderators for the forum itself who are willing to really look > > at all > > > >>>> posts that are in moderation and analyze whether they should be > > passed > > > >>>> through. If it is a poorly formed question, the post should be > > rejected with > > > >>>> a pointer to the forum FAQ. > > > >>>> 2. moderators for the FAQ who can pay attention to common > > questions and > > > >>>> update the FAQ as appropriate. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> If we're all on board, send those moderators to me and we can get > > things > > > >>>> set up. And folks can start following the tagging convention > > instantly in > > > >>>> the meantime. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Matt > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
