From: randall-joshua@yale.edu (Joshua E. Randall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Subject: MISC:  Data for the Proposed Group Split
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:18:33 -0500
Organization: Yale University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

A while ago someone suggested we do a study of just how much
each genre of games gets discussed.  Not having a life, I
decided to do just that.  The data is below; hopefully this
will help us decide which groups should be created.


                    NewsWatcher                UNIX "rn"

.action              22     11%                129     6%
.adventure           27     27%                381    18%
.advocacy             0      0%                 14     0%
.announce             1      0%                  0     0%
.crpg                36     18%                900    43%
.flight-sim           5      2%                201    10%
.forsale              2      1%                135     6%
.misc                62     32%                  6     0%
.sports               6      3%                 62     3%
.strategic           31     16%                223    11%
.wargames             2      1%                 26     1%

TOTAL               194    (98%)              2077   (98%)


How the data was collected:

NewsWatcher is a program for the Macintosh which uses MacTCP
to scan newsgroups.  It is installed on the hard-drives of
all Macs here.  I scanned the subject headers and assigned
them to the proper group above. The 194 articles ranged from
21 January 1993 to 22 January 1993, and that data was
collected at about 4 PM today.

UNIX "rn" is a program for reading newsgroups.  I subscribed
to 'comp.sys.ibm.pc.games' and let my kill file go to work,
capturing the session to a file.  When it was done I had a
54 page document.  I then went through and made a rough
count of each "subject" that was killed, assigning it to the
proper group above.  The 2077 articles ranged from 7 January
1993 to 22 January 1993, and that data was collected at
about 4:30 PM today.


So what does all this mean?  Well, we can see that overall,
'.crpg' consumes a huge amount of discussion, at least in
the UNIX "rn" data, and a fair amount in the NewsWatcher
data.  The '.adventure' discussion is pretty respectable as
well, in both sets of data.  So these two should probably
get their own groups.

Discussion of '.strategic' games was fairly consistent in
both sets of data, and equal to the '.adventure' discussion
(approximately).  However, '.wargames' did not get much
action in either set of data.  So we can safely fold it into
'.strategic' as another group.

Discussion of '.action' was moderate in NewsWatcher and
sub-moderate in UNIX "rn".  The long range trend seems to be
for less '.action' discussion.  However, with the upcoming
releases of Doom, X-Wing, and Wing Commander 3/Privateer, I
think this group could really explode.  So it makes the cut.

Discussion of '.flight-sim' was minimal in the NewsWatcher
data, but respectable in the UNIX "rn" data.  This one is
kind of iffy.  Aesthetically I think '.flight-sim' ought to
be a group, but the recent data doesn't support that claim.
I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, though.  Also, if
Strike Commander even comes out, this group could explode
just as much as '.action'.

The data on '.misc' is somewhat puzzling; 32% of the
NewsWatcher but 0% of the UNIX "rn" data?  I have a feeling
something is wrong with this data.  But in any case, I think
we all agree that a '.misc' group is necessary.

As for the rest of the groups, none of them had more than a
minimal percentage.  So we can fold them all into '.misc'.
Only '.forsale' had anywhere near enough discussion to
warrant its own group, and personally, I'm against a
'.forsale' group anyway.

Thus we are left with (using the UNIX "rn" percentages):

.action         6%
.adventure     18%
.crpg          43%
.flight-sim    10%
.strategic     12%
.misc          11%

That is six groups.  A good sized split, but not unwieldy.
Even taking into account the errors I undoubtedly made in
collecting this data, I feel that these six groups are a
good, solid division.


Well, there's the data and my interpretation of it.  Feel
free to point out my stupid math errors, and even collect
your own data if you want.

-- 
Joshua E. Randall                       randall-joshua@yale.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games