From: dsew@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Sewell)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Oracle Survey results - Part 1/3
Keywords: survey summary
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:54:30 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


The following two postings contain (1) statistical breakdowns and (2) a
sample of narrative responses from Oracle readership questionnaires that
were returned to me.  I received 112 in all; thanks again to all of you
who sent one back.  (N.B.: these were reader/participant responses and
don't include Priesthood responses.)

For those of you who don't like wading through lots of numbers, here's a
brief summary of what I learned.  (With 100+ responses I expect this is
a pretty reliable sample of Oracle readership.  On the other hand, Brian
Reid's estimate of worldwide rec.humor.oracle readership is c. 30,000.
Anyone want to help me out on the statistics of sampling error?)

You're OVERWHELMINGLY MALE.  This was not a surprise, but the 92%-8%
split was even larger than I had expected.  (Does anyone know if there are
available age/gender breakdowns of general Usenet readership?)
    Two-thirds of the women who responded felt that published
Oracularities are definitely or somewhat too male-oriented or sexist;
46% of the men agreed.

You're YOUNG, but not all that young: average age 26, with very few
under 20.  The fictional "undergraduate geek" audience that Incarnations
often write to is pretty much that--only 27% of respondents said they
are undergraduates.  (On the other hand, maybe the real youngsters
haven't yet learned how to respond to a Usenet posting :-) )

You're predominately AMERICAN, but not so much as many of you think: 31%
of respondents were from outside the US.  Second largest contingent was
from Australia, with 11% of the respondents.  Most Americans don't think
the Oracle is too American in its focus, but 70% of non-Americans
felt that it is at least sometimes.  (Suggestion to American
incarnations: go easy on sports and TV shows.)

Yes, you're a bunch of COMPUTER NERDS!  Over a third of respondents
indicated they are currently employed as programmers, system
administrators, software engineers, etc; many of the students are CS
majors.  77% of all respondents said they are now or are preparing to be
computer professionals (and many of the no's use computers heavily in
their work).

You're NOT REALLY NERDS!  83% of you can bench-press at least 1.25x your
own weight.  [sorry, obligatory leg-pulling here...]

You're SCIENCE FICTION readers.  Far and away the favorite leisure-time
reading, with 60% of all respondents mentioning it.

A GOOD Oracularity, you feel, is original, creative, clever, and
offbeat.  A BAD one is over-long and boring, and relies too heavily on
grovel flames or Supplicant abuse, or on overused parts of the Oracle
mythos.  By and large, your favorite types of Oracularities are invented
histories or ones that play with field-specific terms/knowledge or the
conventions of the Oracle itself ("meta-Oracularities").  Disliked are
Oracularities that rely heavily on the Lisa-Oracle relationship or wild
slapstick and vulgarity; ASCII graphics are the most despised.  (Note,
however, that the ASCII-graphic "take this" extended middle finger was
one of the favorites.  The lesson seems to be that really funny ASCII
graphics are rare.)

Almost everyone thinks that the conventional anonymity of Oracular
questions and answers is helpful; many of you said you wouldn't post
to the Oracle without it.

Finally, EVERYONE who answered the question felt that the writing and
humor in the Oracularities Digest is equal to or better than the average
on Usenet!


-- 
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