From: dsew@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Sewell)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Oracle survey results - Part 2/3
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:56:24 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


ORACLE QUESTIONNAIRE, general version

Respondents: 112 (most questions did not receive responses
   from every respondent)

Gender:  M 103    (92%)
         F        (08%)

Age:  (106 responding)

        15-19:   6         30-34:  13
        20-24:  44         35-39:   4
        25-29:  35         40-44:   4

        Youngest: 17  Oldest: 42
        Average: 26.1  Median: 25  Mode: 23

Country of Originating Address:

    USA             77   69%        Finland          2    2%
    Australia       12   11%        Norway           2    2%
    UK               5    4%        Sweden           2    2%
    Germany          4    4%        Checkoslovakia   1    1%
    New Zealand      3    3%        Portugal         1    1%
    Canada           2    2%        South Africa     1    1%


Occupation or current level of studies:
(Not all responded; some indicated both studies & career)

  Computer programmer / system administrator
    software engineer / etc:                    38
  Undergraduate student:                        30
  Graduate student:                             17
  Miscellaneous business/professional:           9
  Miscellaneous scientific/technical:            8
  Engineering:                                   7
  Bum:                                           1

I.   Your General Usenet/Computer Background

1.  Do you read posted Oracularities via rec.humor.oracle or via the
e-mail list?  (105 responding)

   R.H.O: 75
   list:  30

2.  (If you don't have Usenet access, skip to #4).  How long have you
had access to Usenet?  (97 responding)

    < 2 months      2
      2-6 months    3
      6 mo - 1 yr   8
      1 - 2 yrs     25
      2 - 5 yrs     43
    > 5 years       16

3.  Besides rec.humor.oracle, what other Usenet groups do you most
actively read and/or post to?

(Great variety on this one.  Among the most common or relevant:

   comp.*              46
   rec.humor.funny     23
   rec.humor            5
   rec.*               25
   rec.arts.*          14
   talk.bizarre         7   )

4.  What other forms of computer networked communication do you
regularly participate in?  (E.g. Listserv lists, IRC and MUDs,
commercial on-line service or BBS forums, e-mail art, groupware
projects, etc.)

   Listserv:   34          Fidonet:     5
   none:       28          Compuserve:  5
   BBS's:      14          other com.
   MUD, etc:   12            BBS:       4
   IRC/Relay:  11          BBS sysop:   3

5.  Are you now or are you preparing to be a "computer professional"?
    (109 responding)

    YES:     86
    NO:      16
    SEMI:     5     (will or do work in computer-intensive field)
    MAYBE:    2

6.  Briefly, what's your background in computing?
    (93 responding.  Labels are partially subjective; "advanced"=strong CS
     background, programming, and/or systems knowledge; "intermediate"
     =some programming & systems, self-taught or beginning CS)

   novice:          4
   intermediate:   19
   advanced:       70


II.  Your General Writing/Literary Background

1.  What kind of writing, if any, do you do professionally? as a hobby
or on the side?  (Include Usenet and other on-line writing.)

   technical/research:  33   (underreports academic writing)
   fiction, amateur:    19
   none:                10
   poetry:               9
   memos/reports:        5
   humorous:             3
   games:                3
   fiction, profes.:     1

2.  Have you had writing published?

    Yes: 20
    No:  42

3.  What kinds of writing do you prefer to read in your leisure time?

    Science fiction:    68     Science:             9
    Fantasy:            27     Classics:            9
    Humor:              14     History:             6
    Thriller/horror:    11     Philosophy:          4
    Mysteries:          11     Poetry:              4
    Technical:          10     Nonfiction:          4
    Fiction, novels:     9


III. You as a Reader of Oracularities

1.  Why do you read rec.humor.oracle (or postings to the Oracle mailing
list)?

   The virtually unanimous response was "for humor."

2.  What do you think makes for a good Oracularity?  What qualities of
writing or mind impress you the most?  At the other extreme, what makes
for a bad Oracularity?

(Categories named by more than three respondents.  In many cases, I have
condensed a general description into a single abstract term.)

Good                                Bad
----                                ---

Orginality             16           Over-long & boring      16
Creativity             14           Grovel flames or
Offbeat, off-                         abuse of Supplicant   14
 the-wall              15           Overuse of Oracle
Wit, cleverness        13             mythos, Lisa/Orrie    10
Brevity                 8           Too much grovelling      7
Puts spin on question   8           Grammar/spelling errors  6
Arcane refs, in-jokes   5           Inside jokes             5
Good use of question    4           Too brief                5
                                    Vulgarity, bad taste     5
                                    Techno-dweeb references  5
                                    Too regional or local    4
                                    Mundane, serious         4

3.  If you can recall them, what are one or two of your favorite
published Oracularities (with responses written by someone other than
yourself), and why?  

Oracularities mentioned by at least two (#) respondents:

134-10  Whither Troff? (2)          391-08  Very Strange Bible (2)
135-08  Hawking vs. Merlin (8)      394-09  schizoid Oracle (6)
140-05  Hulk vs. Superman (2)       401-03  Carnegie Hall (2)
202-06  Take this! finger (5)       415-04  Power User & Bitman (2)
303-06  schizoid Oracle (2)         460-05  Origins of ZOT (3)
353-03  meaning of universe (2)     465-05  Oracle School (2)
365-10  English vs metric  (6)      469-04  What's the point (2)


4.  How do you think the quality of writing/humor on rec.humor.oracle
compares with that of other Usenet writing you're familiar with?  with
"real-world" writing?  

("Real-world" writing question proved too vague to respond to, but
comparison with Usenet writing was more conclusive:)

  Worse than average Usenet writing:    0
  Comparable to  "     "      "         8
  Better than    "     "      "        38

5.  On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not at all to 5 = very much), how much do
you tend to like the following genres of Oracularities?  (Assume in each
case that the Oracularity is a competent example of the genre.)

(Ranked average score for each category given first; categories sorted
by rank.)

   invented histories                          3.83
   clever use of field-specific terms, etc     3.63
   meta-Oracularity (plays w/ conventions)     3.63
   parodies of classical literature            3.55
   political satire                            3.54
   parodies of TV shows                        3.48
   parodies of computer documentation          3.46
   simulated Unix/VMS/etc sessions             3.27
   parodies of popular lit (Sam Spade, etc)    3.20
   humorous or nonsense verse                  3.13
   simulated text adventure games              3.06
   high sexual content/humor                   2.93
   weird prose a la talk.bizarre               2.75
   heavy use of Lisa/Oracle relationship       2.71
   wildly vulgar and/or slapstick              2.67
   ASCII graphics                              2.33

   Average rank:                               3.20
   standard deviation:                         0.41


6.  Do you think the published Oracularities tend to be too
male-oriented or sexist?  (yes/no; elaborate if desired)

   YES:              29    (24 M, 5 F)
   NO:               51    (48 M, 3 F)
   maybe, somewhat:  22    (21 M, 1 F)
   Yes but so what:   4    (male)

7.  Do you think the published Oracularities are too exclusively
American in their focus?  (yes/no; elaborate if desired)

   YES:                25   (11 US, 14 non-US)
   NO:                 48   (40 US,  8 non-US)
   maybe, sometimes:   16   (11 US,  5 non-US)
   no opinion:          7   (US)


IV.  Your Activities as an Author

3.  Have you ever "researched" a question or response--for example, gone
to an encyclopedia to check historical dates, or looked up information
in a textbook or computer manual?

    YES: 26
    NO:  36

4.  What do you do with a question that assumes knowledge in an area you
know little or nothing about?
  (Many people put more than one alternative in their response.)

    Answer but "twist" the question     24
     in another direction:
    Don't answer it:                    19
    Fake it or "wing it":               18
    Do research or ask someone:         11

5.  How do you feel about the anonymity of Oracularities?  (In theory
Incarnations can identify themselves, but fewer than 1% do.)  Does it
make a difference?  Would you put more effort into writing for the
Oracle if you knew your identity would be public?  Or is the anonymity
helpful?

     It is useful, helpful:         38
     It is crucial:                  9
     Makes no difference:            9
     Would rather be identified:     4
     Ambivalent:                     2

6.  Do you have an imagined audience when you write a question or
response for the Oracle?  If so, how would you characterize that
audience?

     None:                       15
     Computer literate/
      computer geek:             10
     Well-educated:               8
     The Supplicant:              8
     People like myself:          6
     Students:                    3
     Typical Usenet reader:       3

-- 
David Sewell, English Dept, U of Rochester   |  "Grammarians without any
  dsew@troi.cc.rochester.edu                 |  character at all lecture
  dsewell@violet.ccit.arizona.edu            |  us upon that of Homer."
  (On leave in Tucson, Arizona, '92-'93)     |     --Diogenes the Cynic
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d