[wp-hackers] Wp-hackers Stats for January 2006
r at schestowitz.com
Sun Feb 19 05:03:13 GMT 2006
_____/ On Sun 19 Feb 2006 04:35:20 GMT, [Jason S.] wrote : \_____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> I don't know if this will be well-received. For what it's worth:
> There's something wrong with this data, I'm assuming that this isn't a
> 'life of ML to date'? Can you tell us at one point this log data started?
Starting: Sun Jan 1 04:21:49 GMT 2006
Ending: Tue Jan 31 20:28:33 GMT 2006
You're actually quite right as I have just doubled-checked the numbers. Many
messages get discarded, perhaps because they are improperly formatted.
grepping the raw archive, it certainly contains all messages, but that C
program sometimes aggregates several messages, treating them as just a
>> ***** Table showing the most successful subjects:
>> | 1 | [wp-hackers] Need more RSS hooks | 17 | 7.00 % |
"most successful subjects" is not my choice of words.
>> ***** Table of maximal quoting:
>> | 10 | jason at zenenet.com (Jason S) | 56.42 % |
> Ouch... something seems seriously wrong there.
>> ***** Most successful subject:
>> Subject : [wp-hackers] Need more RSS hooks
>> No. of msgs: 17
>> Total size : 52077 bytes
_____/ On Sun 19 Feb 2006 04:39:02 GMT, [Jason S.] added : \_____
> Jason S. wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> I don't know if this will be well-received. For what it's worth:
>> There's something wrong with this data, I'm assuming that this isn't a
>> 'life of ML to date'? Can you tell us at one point this log data started?
> I'm a moron. Perhaps if I looked at the subject line of the message? _-_
> This explains the quote whoring a little bit better too.
> I don't mind once-a-month stats. Though I think a pretty html page with
> archives and such would be... well "cute" for lack of a better term.
It exists already, but I just thought it was slightly crude.
I won't be doing that again, I promise. *smile*
More information about the wp-hackers