> Umm, remember, folks, the person wanting the data was doing an item for
> _Wired_ magazine... something folks will look at for maybe 30 seconds, say
> "Huh!" and move on. I don't think they'll be worried about rigorous
> accuracy.
No-one has *ever* accused Wired magazine of rigorous accuracy. Even when
they give datasets that appear to be US- or North-American continent
specific (ten most popular stolen car brands, say) they neglect to mention
that fact. Methodology? No way.
> (And I do think alt.sex, alt.sex.wizards, and alt.sex.bondage will
> make the top 10.)
Naaah. When it comes to ftp download statistics, the biggest multipart
FAQ wins. (tattooing? ibm pc hardware?) I can't see any way of accurately
comparing multi- and single-part downloads.
L.
-- Lloyd WOOD, TELECOM Paris TSA, Toulouse, France +33 62 17 88 52 <wood@enst-tlse.fr> http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved