Comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, that is. At least according to the rjk
spoolstats*. But yeah, CSIPGA is now one of the top-ten most active
newsgroups, at least by article count (we're #22 by user count, and
#11 by bytes per day).

Which really says more about the decline of Usenet** as a whole than
how popular this newsgroup is, although there /has/ been a measured
increase in posts here over the past few years (and this month in
particular, for some reason. Can't imagine why ;-). But six years ago
CSIPGA was #85, so I'm not complaining.

CSIPGA: it's one of the hot destinations of Usenet again. ;-P

* find them here. Does not include ALT.* or binaries
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/allgroups.html

** Seriously, the fall-off for Usenet is depressing. According to the
above stats, in the last 7 days, in ALL of the groups monitored, there
were only 949 articles in total and even at the most OPTIMISTIC count,
less than 1000 users who actually post. It almost makes me wish Google
would re-implement their newsfeed again...

On 12/30/2024 8:12 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> Comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, that is. At least according to the rjk
> spoolstats*. But yeah, CSIPGA is now one of the top-ten most active
> newsgroups, at least by article count (we're #22 by user count, and
> #11 by bytes per day).
>
> Which really says more about the decline of Usenet** as a whole than
> how popular this newsgroup is, although there /has/ been a measured
> increase in posts here over the past few years (and this month in
> particular, for some reason. Can't imagine why ;-). But six years ago
> CSIPGA was #85, so I'm not complaining.
>
> CSIPGA: it's one of the hot destinations of Usenet again. ;-P
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * find them here. Does not include ALT.* or binaries
> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/allgroups.html
>
> ** Seriously, the fall-off for Usenet is depressing. According to the
> above stats, in the last 7 days, in ALL of the groups monitored, there
> were only 949 articles in total and even at the most OPTIMISTIC count,
> less than 1000 users who actually post. It almost makes me wish Google
> would re-implement their newsfeed again...
>
>

oh, well, good job everyone

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 14:12:39 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>
>Comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, that is. At least according to the rjk
>spoolstats*. But yeah, CSIPGA is now one of the top-ten most active
>newsgroups, at least by article count (we're #22 by user count, and
>#11 by bytes per day).

Is this a competitive game now? Cool. The ultimate action game. Win
Usenet.

.....and you can win it with 1 fps if you like.

--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 14:12:39 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>** Seriously, the fall-off for Usenet is depressing.

Really? I've always found the less traveled paths to be the most
interesting.

I can't imagine being the star attraction of crowded places like
DisneyLand to be a fun job, unless one aspires to be playing the role
of Mickey Mouse and is an over the top attention whore.

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 20:28:21 -0500, Rin Stowleigh
<rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:

>Really? I've always found the less traveled paths to be the most
>interesting.

There's the less traveled path and then there is the path so overgrown
that it doesn't really exist anymore and so no one is on it. I think
that is where this newsgroup is headed.

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 22:10:19 -0500, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 20:28:21 -0500, Rin Stowleigh
><rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>
>>Really? I've always found the less traveled paths to be the most
>>interesting.
>
>There's the less traveled path and then there is the path so overgrown
>that it doesn't really exist anymore and so no one is on it. I think
>that is where this newsgroup is headed.

If anyone is really passionate about Usenet preservation, the most
future proof approach would be to set up your own Usenet server /
related infrastructure, and own your own little slice of paradise on
the information superhighway for which you eat the cost and let others
trample on it out of the goodness of your heart.

Posting more often is only utilizing infrastructure resources at
someone else's expense, which might be more likely to demotivate them
to keep going for free.

For those that see value in keeping Usenet around, but aren't losing
sleep over the matter one way or the other, the best strategy is to
pay a provider for use of their Usenet servers, while simultaneously
not trying to be the top poster and spam it with lots of frivolous
crap.

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 22:10:19 -0500, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 20:28:21 -0500, Rin Stowleigh
><rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>
>>Really? I've always found the less traveled paths to be the most
>>interesting.
>
>There's the less traveled path and then there is the path so overgrown
>that it doesn't really exist anymore and so no one is on it. I think
>that is where this newsgroup is headed.

Well, Usenet as a whole. But as recent evidence suggests, CSIPGA
actually has a visible path again! Sure, it's overgrown and leads to
that scary delapidated old house that stories say was the home to a
serial murderer... but it's a path! ;-)

Still... those stats are scary. I don't know how accurate the rjk
spoolstats really are, but they don't seem TOO off from what I've
seen. And they don't paint a rosy picture for Usenet, sadly. He
reports only around 200 newsgroups that get at least one post a week,
and only 30 of them average one post a day! There's a very dramatic
drop-off last February (when Google killed its Usenet access), where
total posts dropped by at least a third. It's only a tiny handful of
groups where there is any real activity (and weirdly, CSIPGA is one of
them). Usenet is _not_ in a healthy place.

But at least CSIPGA isn't quite as close to death's door as it was,
even if its only by comparison to the rude health of the other groups.
Gotta take your positives where you can get 'em ;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>** Seriously, the fall-off for Usenet is depressing. According to the
>above stats, in the last 7 days, in ALL of the groups monitored, there
>were only 949 articles in total and even at the most OPTIMISTIC count,
>less than 1000 users who actually post. It almost makes me wish Google
>would re-implement their newsfeed again...

Just think of how awesome it would be to a have a BBS with those nummbers.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On 12/31/2024 7:51 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 22:10:19 -0500, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 20:28:21 -0500, Rin Stowleigh
>> <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Really? I've always found the less traveled paths to be the most
>>> interesting.
>>
>> There's the less traveled path and then there is the path so overgrown
>> that it doesn't really exist anymore and so no one is on it. I think
>> that is where this newsgroup is headed.
>
> Well, Usenet as a whole. But as recent evidence suggests, CSIPGA
> actually has a visible path again! Sure, it's overgrown and leads to
> that scary delapidated old house that stories say was the home to a
> serial murderer... but it's a path! ;-)
>
>
>
>
> Still... those stats are scary. I don't know how accurate the rjk
> spoolstats really are, but they don't seem TOO off from what I've
> seen. And they don't paint a rosy picture for Usenet, sadly. He
> reports only around 200 newsgroups that get at least one post a week,
> and only 30 of them average one post a day! There's a very dramatic
> drop-off last February (when Google killed its Usenet access), where
> total posts dropped by at least a third. It's only a tiny handful of
> groups where there is any real activity (and weirdly, CSIPGA is one of
> them). Usenet is _not_ in a healthy place.

Most of that google trafic wasn't legit. Probably only me and the 3rd
to last person in alt.dreams who just dropped it after.

> But at least CSIPGA isn't quite as close to death's door as it was,
> even if its only by comparison to the rude health of the other groups.
> Gotta take your positives where you can get 'em ;-)

It's actually been too much for me to read everything since I got busy
in October.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:04:53 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Most of that google trafic wasn't legit. Probably only me and the 3rd
>to last person in alt.dreams who just dropped it after.

Yeah. It should be pointed out that quoted stats only apply to big-8
newsgroups, so all of the traffic in the ALT.* hierachy isn't counted.
And there /are/ some quite active newsgroups

[Well, "active" from the perspective of 2025, not 1994]

in the ALT.* hierarchy that have nothing to do with porn or binaries.
So the rjk spoolstats aren't a complete picture.

But even if they triple the current "legitimate" (e.g., not stuff
that's likely to get a Usenet server shut-down) traffic, that's still
an insignificant number of users and traffic compared to any other
forum service.

CSIPGA was actually fairly lucky with regards to google-groups spam
(well, at least until the end when we got an unusual amount of it). I
don't know if it's just that this group wasn't worth targeting, or if
the spam-filters were working, but most of what we saw from google was
the errant user responding to a twenty-year old post. Which was sort
of fun in its own right, since it gave us something new (old!) to talk
about ;-)

>It's actually been too much for me to read everything since I got busy
>in October.

Well, there's the problem. Put aside all those other things that are
keeping you from Usenet. You gotta set your priorities, people! ;-)

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 17:23:23 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>** Seriously, the fall-off for Usenet is depressing. According to the
>>above stats, in the last 7 days, in ALL of the groups monitored, there
>>were only 949 articles in total and even at the most OPTIMISTIC count,
>>less than 1000 users who actually post. It almost makes me wish Google
>>would re-implement their newsfeed again...
>
>Just think of how awesome it would be to a have a BBS with those nummbers.

There was a period when I had to access Usenet through a BBS.
_Finding_ a BBS that offered the service was a challenge enough. But
using it was different than I normally did. You'd download the latest
updates to the spool, then go offline to compose your messages, then
have to reconnect to send your comments. Which doesn't sound that bad,
except Usenet was so busy that in the time that you spent offline
thinking up a response, another 500 posts got added to the spool. ;-)

You really had to pick-n-choose your threads back then.

On 1/1/2025 7:22 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 17:23:23 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
> (Ross Ridge) wrote:
>
>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ** Seriously, the fall-off for Usenet is depressing. According to the
>>> above stats, in the last 7 days, in ALL of the groups monitored, there
>>> were only 949 articles in total and even at the most OPTIMISTIC count,
>>> less than 1000 users who actually post. It almost makes me wish Google
>>> would re-implement their newsfeed again...
>>
>> Just think of how awesome it would be to a have a BBS with those nummbers.
>
> There was a period when I had to access Usenet through a BBS.
> _Finding_ a BBS that offered the service was a challenge enough. But
> using it was different than I normally did. You'd download the latest
> updates to the spool, then go offline to compose your messages, then
> have to reconnect to send your comments. Which doesn't sound that bad,
> except Usenet was so busy that in the time that you spent offline
> thinking up a response, another 500 posts got added to the spool. ;-)
>
> You really had to pick-n-choose your threads back then.
>
That must have been absolute hell for you. :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 15:19 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:04:53 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Most of that google trafic wasn't legit. Probably only me and the 3rd
>>to last person in alt.dreams who just dropped it after.
>
> Yeah. It should be pointed out that quoted stats only apply to big-8
> newsgroups, so all of the traffic in the ALT.* hierachy isn't counted.
> And there /are/ some quite active newsgroups
>
> [Well, "active" from the perspective of 2025, not 1994]
>
> in the ALT.* hierarchy that have nothing to do with porn or binaries.
> So the rjk spoolstats aren't a complete picture.
>
> But even if they triple the current "legitimate" (e.g., not stuff
> that's likely to get a Usenet server shut-down) traffic, that's still
> an insignificant number of users and traffic compared to any other
> forum service.
>
>
> CSIPGA was actually fairly lucky with regards to google-groups spam
> (well, at least until the end when we got an unusual amount of it). I
> don't know if it's just that this group wasn't worth targeting, or if
> the spam-filters were working, but most of what we saw from google was
> the errant user responding to a twenty-year old post. Which was sort
> of fun in its own right, since it gave us something new (old!) to talk
> about ;-)
>
>
>
>>It's actually been too much for me to read everything since I got busy
>>in October.
>
> Well, there's the problem. Put aside all those other things that are
> keeping you from Usenet. You gotta set your priorities, people! ;-)

I feel that too, I've kinda been going thru a depression and seeing 400
new posts is insane
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 01:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:04:53 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>It's actually been too much for me to read everything since I got busy
>>>in October.

>I feel that too, I've kinda been going thru a depression and seeing 400
>new posts is insane

Just killfile spallshurgenson@*.* and so many problems go away ;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 15:31 this Friday (GMT):
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 01:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:04:53 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's actually been too much for me to read everything since I got busy
>>>>in October.
>
>>I feel that too, I've kinda been going thru a depression and seeing 400
>>new posts is insane
>
>
> Just killfile spallshurgenson@*.* and so many problems go away ;-)

I'd never killfile your messages!
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:00:02 -0000 (UTC), in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
candycanearter07 wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 15:31 this Friday (GMT):
>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 01:10:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:04:53 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's actually been too much for me to read everything since I got busy
>>>>>in October.
>>
>>>I feel that too, I've kinda been going thru a depression and seeing 400
>>>new posts is insane
>>
>>
>> Just killfile spallshurgenson@*.* and so many problems go away ;-)
>
>
>I'd never killfile your messages!

I don't killfile marginally sane people either.

--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)

Am 30.12.24 um 20:12 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>
> Comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, that is. At least according to the rjk
> spoolstats*. But yeah, CSIPGA is now one of the top-ten most active
> newsgroups, at least by article count (we're #22 by user count, and
> #11 by bytes per day).
>
> Which really says more about the decline of Usenet** as a whole than
> how popular this newsgroup is, although there /has/ been a measured
> increase in posts here over the past few years (and this month in
> particular, for some reason. Can't imagine why ;-). But six years ago
> CSIPGA was #85, so I'm not complaining.
>
> CSIPGA: it's one of the hot destinations of Usenet again. ;-P
>
>
> Well it has become more or less the last active group regarding pc
gaming, the others are still there, but not very active!