[WEB4LIB] Decline in Web4Lib message volume

[Leo Robert Klein]

Off the top of my head:

Maybe people have ironed out many of the issues addressed by WEB4LIB (i.e.
we've gotten a whole lot smarter).

Maybe people have gotten better at identifying issues that should be
addressed by WEB4LIB and hence are more discriminating in what they post
(i.e. we've gotten a whole lot more selective).

Maybe we'll all using IM and don't need email anymore.

Maybe the late Ninties was a period of great exploration and experiment
not to be equaled again for a good long time.

I'd do ten but I'm not David Letterman.

On a serious note, Web4Lib'ers might be interested in an analysis done in
the current issue of D-Lib where they analyse the terms used over a
ten-year period:
<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/bollen/01bollen.html>

It'd be interesting to do the same type of analysis here (were there but
world enough and time).

LEO

-- -------------
Leo Robert Klein
www.leoklein.com


On Wed, January 26, 2005 2:38 pm, Sloan, Bernie said:
> In case any of you are ever feeling swamped with the volume of postings
> coming from Web4Lib, just be thankful it's not 1997 again. :-)
>
> Web4Lib message volume peaked in 1997, with 6,521 postings that year, an
> average of 543 per month. Last year (2004) there were 2,919 postings,
> which averages out to 300 fewer postings per month than in 1997. (Not that
> there's anything inherently wrong with getting fewer e-mails).
>
> Seriously though, Web4Lib traffic has tapered off significantly over the
> past few years...2004 may have been the lowest volume year ever. Just
> curious if anyone has any theories about why this might be the case? Has
> this happened with electronic discussion lists generally?
>
> In case you're curious, here are the year by year totals:
>
>> YEAR    TOTALS
>> 2004    2919
>> 2003    3324
>> 2002    3892
>> 2001    4591
>> 2000    4645
>> 1999    4521
>> 1998    4566
>> 1997    6521
>> 1996    3648
>> 1995    2627 (total is for nine motnhs)
>
> Bernie Sloan