From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: SUMMARY of Rec.aviation SURVEY
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:05:04 GMT

The following is a summary of the results of the survey on the 
rec.aviation re-organization.  The survey was posted twice in the 
last two weeks, and received 116 replies.

The survey was intended to help reconcile sophistic "opinions" in the 
discussion process--e.g., those who oppose or support groups saying that 
"most" users don't feel X, or that "most" users feel Y, etc.  This 
provides one datum to try to reconcile such opinions.  It was a way for 
people to input basic sentiment without having to go through the ordeal of 
posting and defending an opinion on the net (many of which tend to be "I 
would vote for/against X", anyway).

The survey was also intended to "float" *all* of the various sub-group
proposals over the past couple of years, whether done as RFD's or informal
"How about a XXX group!" posts.  Thus, if the current RFD missed anything
significant, it could be accomodated in the final CFV.  I was most 
definitely NOT suggesting, in any way, that *all* of the listed groups 
should be created, as some people suggested.

Geoff Peck, the RFD author, will use the survey results, along with public 
comments, private comments, and an assement of traffic, to hammer out a 
final CFV, which, if not catering to *all* interests, will hopefully be an 
*effective* re-organization of rec.aviation.


I hope that the survey results will provide a basis for discussion, on 
news.groups, on what the final "offering" of newsgroups should be.  I will 
offer my own interpretation of the results later in the week, and make
suggestions on how certain problems can be reconciled.

Some information on how the numbers were arrived at, as well as how I 
counted votes, are appended.


A list of all respondents appears at the very end.  Many thanks to everyone
who participated, and a special thanks to those who offered suggestions.
I'll be posting this again, sometime after Oshkosh (~August 10).  Comments,
whether for or against the re-organization, were very supportive, with 
exactly *one* obnoxious exception. :-)


The survey period ended on Tuesday, but I'll continue to accept 
votes through to the CFV.  I *may* post the form one more time, next week: 
I have a  certain academic interest as to whether this summary, and 
the (hopefully) ensuing discussion, might change the replies any.


The Questions:

These were basic structural questions.  Only the first one was completely
binding on Geoff, i.e., whether to re-organize.  The rest were whether
to move the group to sci.*, whether to create a misc group automatically
(remapping rec.aviation to rec.aviation.misc), and whether to rename the 
stem to av or ga, etc.


       Question |  TOTAL  |  YES  |   % YES  |   NO  |  % NO
----------------|---------|-------|----------|-------|----------
         SPLIT? |  116    |   83  |  71.55%  |   33  |  28.45%
           SCI? |  115    |    8  |   6.96%  |  107  |  93.04%
          Misc? |  112    |   77  |  68.75%  |   35  |  31.25%
            AV? |  109    |    9  |   8.26%  |  100  |  91.74%
            GA? |  106    |    0  |   0.00%  |  106  |  100.00%



The Groups:

Here, I asked how strongly people felt about the group possibilities. 
The survey contained all of Geoff's groups, but also, as stated, virtually
everything everyone's suggested over the last couple of years.

Since each user should have only replied to ten groups (theoretically), this 
means that some groups would have gotten fewer numbers of replies than 
others.  

The following table sorts the groups by their *reply* frequencies.

SORTED BY REPLY-FREQUENCY

                  | total   | % total  | total   | average | num   | %
            group | replies | respond  | weight  | score   | 4 mod | 4 mod
------------------|---------|----------|---------|---------|-------|--------
01        soaring |  074    |  63.79%  |   583   |  7.88   |    3  |  4.05 %
02        answers |  066    |  56.90%  |   496   |  7.52   |   32  |  48.48%
03            ifr |  054    |  46.55%  |   377   |  6.98   |    1  |  1.85 %
04          owner |  052    |  44.83%  |   310   |  5.96   |    1  |  1.92 %
05         digest |  049    |  42.24%  |   311   |  6.35   |   25  |  51.02%
06       products |  049    |  42.24%  |   297   |  6.06   |    7  |  14.29%
07         events |  048    |  41.38%  |   288   |  6.00   |    8  |  16.67%
08      homebuilt |  048    |  41.38%  |   347   |  7.23   |    2  |  4.17 %
09           regs |  045    |  38.79%  |   293   |  6.51   |    5  |  11.11%
10        powered |  044    |  37.93%  |   332   |  7.55   |    1  |  2.27 %
11          humor |  044    |  37.93%  |   261   |  5.93   |    2  |  4.55 %
12       piloting |  042    |  36.21%  |   330   |  7.86   |    0  |  0.00 %
13       training |  042    |  36.21%  |   258   |  6.14   |    1  |  2.38 %
14       software |  041    |  35.34%  |   219   |  5.34   |    3  |  7.32 %
15         safety |  040    |  34.48%  |   273   |  6.82   |    2  |  5.00 %
16         theory |  040    |  34.48%  |   267   |  6.68   |    2  |  5.00 %
17            vfr |  038    |  32.76%  |   263   |  6.92   |    2  |  5.26 %
18     simulators |  037    |  31.90%  |   185   |  5.00   |    6  |  16.22%
19   av.airliners |  036    |  31.03%  |   216   |  6.00   |    2  |  5.56 %
20         social |  034    |  29.31%  |   213   |  6.26   |    2  |  5.88 %
21    maintenance |  034    |  29.31%  |   214   |  6.29   |    2  |  5.88 %
22       military |  034    |  29.31%  |   176   |  5.18   |    2  |  5.88 %
23            atc |  031    |  26.72%  |   166   |  5.35   |    2  |  6.45 %
24          legal |  031    |  26.72%  |   163   |  5.26   |    2  |  6.45 %
25        medical |  028    |  24.14%  |   153   |  5.46   |    5  |  17.86%
26    hang-glider |  027    |  23.28%  |   124   |  4.59   |    2  |  7.41 %
27      airplanes |  025    |  21.55%  |   143   |  5.72   |    1  |  4.00 %
28         binary |  025    |  21.55%  |   137   |  5.48   |    2  |  8.00 %
29 aero.airliners |  022    |  18.97%  |   131   |  5.95   |    5  |  22.73%
30    helicopters |  021    |  18.10%  |    90   |  4.29   |    1  |  4.76 %
31        fly-ins |  021    |  18.10%  |   118   |  5.62   |    3  |  14.29%
32            cfi |  020    |  17.24%  |    98   |  4.90   |    0  |  0.00 %
33        history |  018    |  15.52%  |    90   |  5.00   |    0  |  0.00 %
34        student |  017    |  14.66%  |    83   |  4.88   |    2  |  11.76%
35            lta |  016    |  13.79%  |    50   |  3.12   |    1  |  6.25 %
36        warbird |  015    |  12.93%  |    73   |  4.87   |    0  |  0.00 %
37        careers |  013    |  11.21%  |    51   |  3.92   |    0  |  0.00 %



SORTED BY POPULARITY-INDEX

In this part, the "weights" I asked users to assign to each group were
considered.  Thus, 10 would be "strongly desired," 1 would be "weakly
desired."  Due to the structure of the survey, there was no way to allow
people to vote *against* a group.  I took the individual weights for a 
category, added them, and came up with a "total weight" for a group.  This
is probably the strongest single indicator of group popularity.  There is
a surprisingly strong correlation with the frequency-replies.


                  | total   | % total  | total   | average | num   | %
            group | replies | respond  | weight  | score   | 4 mod | 4 mod
------------------|---------|----------|---------|---------|-------|--------
01        soaring |  074    |  63.79%  |   583   |  7.88   |    3  |  4.05 %
02        answers |  066    |  56.90%  |   496   |  7.52   |   32  |  48.48%
03            ifr |  054    |  46.55%  |   377   |  6.98   |    1  |  1.85 %
04      homebuilt |  048    |  41.38%  |   347   |  7.23   |    2  |  4.17 %
05        powered |  044    |  37.93%  |   332   |  7.55   |    1  |  2.27 %
06       piloting |  042    |  36.21%  |   330   |  7.86   |    0  |  0.00 %
07         digest |  049    |  42.24%  |   311   |  6.35   |   25  |  51.02%
08          owner |  052    |  44.83%  |   310   |  5.96   |    1  |  1.92 %
09       products |  049    |  42.24%  |   297   |  6.06   |    7  |  14.29%
10           regs |  045    |  38.79%  |   293   |  6.51   |    5  |  11.11%
11         events |  048    |  41.38%  |   288   |  6.00   |    8  |  16.67%
12         safety |  040    |  34.48%  |   273   |  6.82   |    2  |  5.00 %
13         theory |  040    |  34.48%  |   267   |  6.68   |    2  |  5.00 %
14            vfr |  038    |  32.76%  |   263   |  6.92   |    2  |  5.26 %
15          humor |  044    |  37.93%  |   261   |  5.93   |    2  |  4.55 %
16       training |  042    |  36.21%  |   258   |  6.14   |    1  |  2.38 %
17       software |  041    |  35.34%  |   219   |  5.34   |    3  |  7.32 %
18   av.airliners |  036    |  31.03%  |   216   |  6.00   |    2  |  5.56 %
19    maintenance |  034    |  29.31%  |   214   |  6.29   |    2  |  5.88 %
20         social |  034    |  29.31%  |   213   |  6.26   |    2  |  5.88 %
21     simulators |  037    |  31.90%  |   185   |  5.00   |    6  |  16.22%
22       military |  034    |  29.31%  |   176   |  5.18   |    2  |  5.88 %
23            atc |  031    |  26.72%  |   166   |  5.35   |    2  |  6.45 %
24          legal |  031    |  26.72%  |   163   |  5.26   |    2  |  6.45 %
25        medical |  028    |  24.14%  |   153   |  5.46   |    5  |  17.86%
26      airplanes |  025    |  21.55%  |   143   |  5.72   |    1  |  4.00 %
27         binary |  025    |  21.55%  |   137   |  5.48   |    2  |  8.00 %
28 aero.airliners |  022    |  18.97%  |   131   |  5.95   |    5  |  22.73%
29    hang-glider |  027    |  23.28%  |   124   |  4.59   |    2  |  7.41 %
30        fly-ins |  021    |  18.10%  |   118   |  5.62   |    3  |  14.29%
31            cfi |  020    |  17.24%  |    98   |  4.90   |    0  |  0.00 %
32    helicopters |  021    |  18.10%  |    90   |  4.29   |    1  |  4.76 %
33        history |  018    |  15.52%  |    90   |  5.00   |    0  |  0.00 %
34        student |  017    |  14.66%  |    83   |  4.88   |    2  |  11.76%
35        warbird |  015    |  12.93%  |    73   |  4.87   |    0  |  0.00 %
36        careers |  013    |  11.21%  |    51   |  3.92   |    0  |  0.00 %
37            lta |  016    |  13.79%  |    50   |  3.12   |    1  |  6.25 %


Suggested groups:

These are "fill in the blank" groups.  No score is awarded.

               cap   Civil Air Patrol
            design   Aircraft design, compared to theory.
       experiences   Another hangar-flying group.  
experience-sharing   Another hangar-flying group.
       euro-flying   European flying.
            flying   Alternative to powered/piloting groups.   
       flying_club   Club issues, distinct from ownership issues.
           forsale   For-sale group.
           general   Misc group.
        navigation   Navigation techniques.
       non-powered   (Twice) Alternative to soaring, balloon, hang-glider, lta.
              nprm   Notices of Proposed Rulemaking.
             races   One user really enjoys air races.
            re-org   For re-organization proposals. :-)
           stories   Suggested twice: hangar-flying, etc.        
         technical   Technical grab-bag.
           weather   Discussion of weather, sort of an alternative to the 
                     geo group.


The boring stuff:

Question fields:


          Question |  TOTAL  |  YES  | % YES    |   NO  |  % NO
   ----------------|---------|-------|----------|-------|----------


"Question" is the name of the question.

"TOTAL" is the total number of respondents to each question.  Note that
some people intentionally refused to answer "YES" or "NO" to these
questions.

"YES" is the total number of respondents who voted "YES."  "% YES"
is the percentage of the TOTAL number of users who voted "YES."

"NO" is the total number of respondents who voted "NO."  "% NO"
is the percentage of the TOTAL number of users who voted "NO."


Group fields:

                | total   | % total  | total   | average | num   | %
          group | replies | respond  | weight  | score   | 4 mod | 4 mod
----------------|---------|----------|---------|---------|-------|--------

"Group" is the group-name.

"Total replies" are the total *number* of replies for that category.  E.g.,
seventeen people voted for the student newsgroup.  This figure includes
the number of people who voted for a "moderated" version of the group.

The "% total respond" is "total replies" divided by the TOTAL number of
replies to the survey.  For this sample, this field would be "15/97", or 
15%.  This is a "frequency" index.

The "total weight" is the sum of the "weight-scores" users have entered
for the various groups.  This is, perhaps, the most important indicator of
popular support.

"Average score" gives an idea of how strongly the people who voted for
a group felt about it: it is the "total weight" divided by "total
replies."  Note that this can be misleading: if 100 people vote "10's"
for a group, their average score would be the same as a group with only
*one* person voting a "10".  But with a given weight-score, it's a useful 
index of support.

"Num 4 mod" indicates the number of people who voted for moderation.

"% 4 mod" is "num 4 mod" divided by "total replies," the percentage of
people who replied who wanted to moderate.



How the replies were handled:

All replies were blind-echoed to Geoff Peck.

I compiled the survey using Microsoft Excel 3.0 on a Mac.  I essentially
transcribed the results by hand, and wrote a C program to parse the
spreadsheet and crank out the above data.  Geoff Peck wrote an awk
script to get the same data from the raw messages; there's a fairly strong 
degree of correlation, probably within 5% or so.

In GENERAL, I tried to be as easy-going and flexible as possible, to a much
greater degree than what would normally be acceptable in a CFV, for instance.
The survey was lengthy: a few questions were poorly worded, a number of users
"went their own way," etc.  In general, if a user took the time to reply, I 
made an effort to work with him to reconcile an inappropriate or unusable 
response into a format I could use in the survey.  

The following details some specific approaches I took, which might raise 
more conservative eyebrows.

I accepted all replies which answered the "question" block.  When
users screwed up in the group-vote block, either by petulant "I
refuse to answer because I hate the idea of the re-organization," 
or where they offered top 10's rather than the weight-scores, or when
a user I knew offered an unusual set of opinions, I asked for 
additional information or clarifications.  Users who ultimately refused
to answer the group-vote questions were still counted.  I couldn't
accomodate "top 10" votes; only such users' "Question" block was counted, if
I couldn't obtain a re-vote.

A couple of users have yet to reply with a complete "answer" portion
of the survey.  I will count that portion whenever they get back to me.

If someone just answered "no" to the "re-organization" vote and left
*everything* else (including the rest of the "question" block) blank, the 
survey was not counted.  I only had to do this once; it was an amiable
difference of opinion.  To do otherwise completely defeats the purpose of 
the survey, IMHO.

When users offered extensive comments, or Top 10 ratings, I flagged
them for Geoff's attention, since they contained strong abstract 
"commentary" in addition to survey input.

"I dunno" or "Maybe" replies to the questions were left unmarked, unless
it was the split question.

When a user answered "Only if the re-organization goes through" to the
"Should we create an automatic 'misc?' group?" question, I entered
"YES," since this was technically what the wording of the survey 
required.

When a user answered "NO" to the "Should we re-name the stem?" question,
I marked both rec.av and rec.ga as "NO."  When they answered "YES" to the
"re-name" question, without saying WHICH one it should be re-named to,
I asked for clarification, leaving it blank in the interim.

Both fewer and more than ten groups were accepted.  I also accepted, 
verbatim, the replies which filled in *all* fields; this is slightly 
different from how Geoff is doing his sums.

The "moderator" tally differs somewhat from Geoff's approach.  The
*question* in the survey wasn't an either/or; it was more complementary in
tone.  The percentage of "moderation" requests for a group, as a function
of the total votes for the group, is a stronger indication of whether it 
should be moderated, IMHO.

A number of users offered "misc" *weight scores*, despite the
fact that there was no group field for them.  I treated these as 
*comments*, and ignored them.  In all such cases, the user also replied 
"YES" to the "Should we create rec.aviation.misc?" question, so this didn't 
really matter.  Tabulating the "enthusiastic" votes for misc would not have 
been representative, since most people didn't comment.

Lastly, in the "suggested" groups, a number of people offered different
takes on the "regulatory" group.  Most of these were fairly minor 
variations on the "pseudo-charter" in the survey, and were more correctly
*comments* than an additional, specific regulatory group.  I therefore 
declined to include these in the "write-in" summary, and flagged them for 
Geoff's attention.




The respondents:

 G.B.D.Brown@bnr.co.uk
88opensi!denver!dave@uunet.UU.NET (Dave Cline) 
al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman)
aviva@ultra.com 
barford@hpllab.hpl.hp.com
barr@hickory.mmm.ucar.EDU
berry@athos.pei.com (Berry Krecheval)
bgm@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca
billm@hpmtlbm.lvld.hp.com
cap@selway.umt.edu
chalekcl@voyager.crd.ge.com
Charles.K.Scott@Dartmouth.EDU
colin@cs.uq.oz.au
darias@us.oracle.com
daveg@misty.sara.fl.us
daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk
dela@augustus.me.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong)
dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu
dxandy@cs.widener.edu
ed@cvgis.Prime.COM
egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov
erik@tera.com
ervice@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
ewv@craycos.com
fenwick@w0x0f.clipper.ingr.com (Steve Fenwick)
fluke!xcskier@uunet.UU.NET
foonberg@aero.org
gabele@inetnode.austin.ibm.com
gba@ecn.purdue.edu
gerry@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com
gersh@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
ggr@corowa.acci.com.au
gt8303a@prism.gatech.edu
hutton@ncrcol.columbiasc.NCR.COM
ingham@lacerta.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham)
jac@asns.tredydev.unisys.com
jackson@src.honeywell.com (Mike Jackson)
jerry.farrell@eng.sun.com
jhawk@panix.com
jkf@frisky.franz.com (Sean Foderaro)
jle@hpfcso.fc.hp.com
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu
John.Little@Japan.Sun.COM
kawai@Csli.Stanford.EDU (goh kawai - n6uok)
kaye@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
king@ukulele.reasoning.com
landry@solvit.enet.dec.com
laura@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com
lavc01::BULLOCK@dino.bms.com
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com
lhe@sics.se
llw31@smhms.imperial.ac.uk
ludeman@cs.wisc.edu
Marc_Majka@NeXT.COM
markg@ichips.intel.com
metasoft@alan@uunet.uu.net
mike@weller.b23a.ingr.com
milgram@eng.umd.edu
mit-eddie!genrad.com!dls@harvard.harvard.edu
mitchell@nodecg.ncc.telecomwa.oz.au 
modcomp!nigel@uunet.UU.NET
msb@sq.com (Mark Brader)
myers@emx.utexas.edu
mythinc!rosso@moon.nbn.com
niles@parc.xerox.com
nyqrn!raf@transfer.stratus.com 
olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu
osmith@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
owen@tdd.sj.nec.com
padraig@slab.pr.erau.edu
perkins@spot.Colorado.EDU
philsuth@mycroft.dialix.oz.au
prang@ssc-bee.boeing.com
PRENDER@MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
pressley@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu
psv2b@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU
pvf@alantec.com (Paul Fries)
qdeck!jbrown
randy%khan@gatech.edu
raveling@kestrel.unify.Unify.Com
rcm@apple.com
rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
rdj%adpgate.uucp@apple.com
ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com
rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller)
robg@apple.com (Rob Griffiths)
ron@pilot.njin.net
rudd@puhep1.Princeton.EDU
rvanhorn@nrtc.northrop.com
sascsg@unx.sas.com
seymour@milton.u.washington.edu
Skip_Guild@mwmgate1.mitre.org
snowem@unx.sas.com
spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com
stadler@newton.apple.com
stanley@oce.orst.edu
steckner@lri.uwo.ca
steve%srsuna@srsuna.shlrc.mq.edu.au
Swerthei@us.oracle.com
t-dougf@microsoft.com
tanner@cs.gmu.edu
tima@CFSMO.Honeywell.COM
tmdg@ti.co.uk
tracht@atc.sps.mot.com
twinsun!tori.twinsun.com!junio@CS.UCLA.EDU
un385@sunws1.bgm.link.com
venky@thelonious.bellcore.com
vines@gauss.eedsp.gatech.edu
waugh@dg-rtp.dg.com
werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.bitnet@UICVM.UIC.EDU
WOLFF%ILNCRD@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL
woof@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
wozniak@ais1.bal.mmc.com
wpalmer@oasys.dt.navy.mil
zarinelli@math.ethz.ch





---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
From: glenb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Glen Baker)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:50:34 GMT
Subject: "remain clear of the ARSA..."
Organization: What, me? Organized?