S&T Bulletins .... the REAL numbers

Folks,

With weather outside being quite unfavourable, a never-ending
story the past five to six weeks, I thought I would be somewhat
productive this particular moment and address this thread in an
analytical manner. I went back and picked up as many of the S&T
bulletins as possible which were still available on my ISP's server.
This number (or sample) comes to six such bulletins available for analysis.

I was debating which is the best way to analyze the material
supposedly representing SPAM material. I decided to use the number of
bytes in lieu of the number of lines, for I feel the former is more
accurate. Each bulletin has a section clearly labelled "Advertisement"
which formed the basis of my analysis, for it provides a clear starting
point (if nothing else). I personally do not consider the sig at the
bottom of each message to be SPAM, for it identifies the source and
organization of the message. I also looked at the numbers with and
without blank spaces between words so as to be complete.

I do not know about others but I am more than comfortable with the
supposed "SPAM score" I derived for each item in my sample. By looking
at the figures below, we have a Signal/Noise ratio of about 10-20 (ie.
90-95%/10-5%) which is something I wish was true for every message
posted here on s.a.a.; and not to mention that these bulletins provide
timely information for something we may have overlooked as well as
various online articles etc.

For some of the "SPAM", it is material which I feel is more
"signal" than "noise" ... case in point is the notice about the upcoming
excursion to Hawaii with O'Meara (see bulletin dated Nov 21/03).

Using the bulletin dated Jan 2, we have:
size of bulletin = 5745 bytes including blank spaces
= 4745 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Advertisement" = 291 bytes including blank spaces
= 266 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Spam" = 291/5745 = 5.06% if including blank spaces
= 266/4745 = 5.61% if excluding blank spaces

Using the bulletin dated Dec 19, we have:
size of bulletin = 7100 bytes including blank spaces
= 6064 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Advertisement" = 366 bytes including blank spaces
= 332 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Spam" = 366/7100 = 5.15% if including blank spaces
= 332/6064 = 5.47% if excluding blank spaces

Using the bulletin dated Dec 12, we have:
size of bulletin = 5315 bytes including blank spaces
= 4523 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Advertisement" = 280 bytes including blank spaces
= 243 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Spam" = 280/5315 = 5.27% if including blank spaces
= 243/4523 = 5.37% if excluding blank spaces

Using the bulletin dated Dec 5, we have:
size of bulletin = 5510 bytes including blank spaces
= 4724 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Advertisement" = 399 bytes including blank spaces
= 370 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Spam" = 399/5510 = 7.24% if including blank spaces
= 370/4724 = 7.83% if excluding blank spaces

Using the bulletin dated Nov 21, we have:
size of bulletin = 6426 bytes including blank spaces
= 5476 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Advertisement" = 764 bytes including blank spaces ....
O'Meara excursion to Hawaii
= 656 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Spam" = 764/6426 = 11.89% if including blank spaces
= 656/5476 = 11.98% if excluding blank spaces

Using the bulletin dated Nov 14, we have:
size of bulletin = 4857 bytes including blank spaces
= 4149 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Advertisement" = 353 bytes including blank spaces
= 313 bytes excluding blank spaces
"Spam" = 354/4857 = 7.29% if including blank spaces
= 313/4149 = 7.54% if excluding blank spaces

Anthony.

So the S&T bulletins are about 6% "Advertisement."

I think the only thing that raised any controversy was the fact that the
word "Advertisement" is used to label those sections. It is routine for
publishers to include, in their publications, indications of what else they
offer. The word "Advertisement" was meant to be a courtesy to us, but it
seems to have set off an automatic reaction in some people.

So far I am only aware of one person who has called those announcements
"spam," and he has not identified himself.

In any case, there is nothing about UseNet that requires a total absence of
commercial content. Spam is *unwelcome* intrusive commercial content. The
S&T bulletins are, as far as I can determine, not unwelcome.

There is no point trying to enforce a rule that does not exist, to satisfy a
person who is not identified.


Clear skies,

Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope

So the S&T bulletins are about 6% "Advertisement."

I think the only thing that raised any controversy was the fact that the
word "Advertisement" is used to label those sections. It is routine for
publishers to include, in their publications, indications of what else they
offer. The word "Advertisement" was meant to be a courtesy to us, but it
seems to have set off an automatic reaction in some people.

So far I am only aware of one person who has called those announcements
"spam," and he has not identified himself.

In any case, there is nothing about UseNet that requires a total absence of
commercial content. Spam is *unwelcome* intrusive commercial content. The
S&T bulletins are, as far as I can determine, not unwelcome.

There is no point trying to enforce a rule that does not exist, to satisfy a
person who is not identified.


Clear skies,

Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope

So the S&T bulletins are about 6% "Advertisement."

I think the only thing that raised any controversy was the fact that the
word "Advertisement" is used to label those sections. It is routine for
publishers to include, in their publications, indications of what else they
offer. The word "Advertisement" was meant to be a courtesy to us, but it
seems to have set off an automatic reaction in some people.

So far I am only aware of one person who has called those announcements
"spam," and he has not identified himself.

In any case, there is nothing about UseNet that requires a total absence of
commercial content. Spam is *unwelcome* intrusive commercial content. The
S&T bulletins are, as far as I can determine, not unwelcome.

There is no point trying to enforce a rule that does not exist, to satisfy a
person who is not identified.


Clear skies,

Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope

Michael,

Michael A. Covington wrote:

So the S&T bulletins are about 6% "Advertisement."

To be totally honest, I see the S&T bulletins as 0% "Advertisement". As
I noted in the original message, I honestly believe that some of the
"Advertisements" are more information and signal than anything else. I
mentioned the O'Meara trip to Hawaii which S&T generously labelled as
"Advertisement" ... this is also true for some calendars etc. For the
amount of very useful information contained in these bulletins, I cannot
for the life of me see how anyone can raise a stink?!

I am just grateful that this service exists ... it reopened my eyes more
than once on something where the "light bulb" accidently went off and
the Bulletin was there to turn the switch back on again in a timely
fashion for some interesting event the following week!

I think the only thing that raised any controversy was the fact that the
word "Advertisement" is used to label those sections. It is routine for
publishers to include, in their publications, indications of what else they
offer. The word "Advertisement" was meant to be a courtesy to us, but it
seems to have set off an automatic reaction in some people.

It is certainly a courtesy extended by S&T ... more than necessry IMHO.

So far I am only aware of one person who has called those announcements
"spam," and he has not identified himself.

That is informative in itself ...

In any case, there is nothing about UseNet that requires a total absence of
commercial content. Spam is *unwelcome* intrusive commercial content. The
S&T bulletins are, as far as I can determine, not unwelcome.

Not just "not unwelcome" but they also provide a service to most (?) of
us here on sci.astro.amateur. For starters, if they were spam, I believe
most people would not even bother to read them and, in turn, there would
be no threads about possible/perceived spam in the first place.

There is no point trying to enforce a rule that does not exist, to satisfy a
person who is not identified.

That says it all!

See you next week with some killer analemmas ... film is not dead yet. :-)

Anthony.

Clear skies,

Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope

Michael,

Michael A. Covington wrote:

So the S&T bulletins are about 6% "Advertisement."

To be totally honest, I see the S&T bulletins as 0% "Advertisement". As
I noted in the original message, I honestly believe that some of the
"Advertisements" are more information and signal than anything else. I
mentioned the O'Meara trip to Hawaii which S&T generously labelled as
"Advertisement" ... this is also true for some calendars etc. For the
amount of very useful information contained in these bulletins, I cannot
for the life of me see how anyone can raise a stink?!

I am just grateful that this service exists ... it reopened my eyes more
than once on something where the "light bulb" accidently went off and
the Bulletin was there to turn the switch back on again in a timely
fashion for some interesting event the following week!

I think the only thing that raised any controversy was the fact that the
word "Advertisement" is used to label those sections. It is routine for
publishers to include, in their publications, indications of what else they
offer. The word "Advertisement" was meant to be a courtesy to us, but it
seems to have set off an automatic reaction in some people.

It is certainly a courtesy extended by S&T ... more than necessry IMHO.

So far I am only aware of one person who has called those announcements
"spam," and he has not identified himself.

That is informative in itself ...

In any case, there is nothing about UseNet that requires a total absence of
commercial content. Spam is *unwelcome* intrusive commercial content. The
S&T bulletins are, as far as I can determine, not unwelcome.

Not just "not unwelcome" but they also provide a service to most (?) of
us here on sci.astro.amateur. For starters, if they were spam, I believe
most people would not even bother to read them and, in turn, there would
be no threads about possible/perceived spam in the first place.

There is no point trying to enforce a rule that does not exist, to satisfy a
person who is not identified.

That says it all!

See you next week with some killer analemmas ... film is not dead yet. :-)

Anthony.

Clear skies,

Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope

Michael,

Michael A. Covington wrote:

So the S&T bulletins are about 6% "Advertisement."

To be totally honest, I see the S&T bulletins as 0% "Advertisement". As
I noted in the original message, I honestly believe that some of the
"Advertisements" are more information and signal than anything else. I
mentioned the O'Meara trip to Hawaii which S&T generously labelled as
"Advertisement" ... this is also true for some calendars etc. For the
amount of very useful information contained in these bulletins, I cannot
for the life of me see how anyone can raise a stink?!

I am just grateful that this service exists ... it reopened my eyes more
than once on something where the "light bulb" accidently went off and
the Bulletin was there to turn the switch back on again in a timely
fashion for some interesting event the following week!

I think the only thing that raised any controversy was the fact that the
word "Advertisement" is used to label those sections. It is routine for
publishers to include, in their publications, indications of what else they
offer. The word "Advertisement" was meant to be a courtesy to us, but it
seems to have set off an automatic reaction in some people.

It is certainly a courtesy extended by S&T ... more than necessry IMHO.

So far I am only aware of one person who has called those announcements
"spam," and he has not identified himself.

That is informative in itself ...

In any case, there is nothing about UseNet that requires a total absence of
commercial content. Spam is *unwelcome* intrusive commercial content. The
S&T bulletins are, as far as I can determine, not unwelcome.

Not just "not unwelcome" but they also provide a service to most (?) of
us here on sci.astro.amateur. For starters, if they were spam, I believe
most people would not even bother to read them and, in turn, there would
be no threads about possible/perceived spam in the first place.

There is no point trying to enforce a rule that does not exist, to satisfy a
person who is not identified.

That says it all!

See you next week with some killer analemmas ... film is not dead yet. :-)

Anthony.

Clear skies,

Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope

Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:

Folks,

With weather outside being quite unfavourable, a never-ending
story the past five to six weeks, I thought I would be somewhat
productive this particular moment and address this thread in an
analytical manner.

Anthony,

I really hope you get some clear skies soon. VERY soon. :-)

Mike Simmons

P.S. I'm really looking forward to your newest analemmas. You are the
unchallenged king of this photographic art.

Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:

Folks,

With weather outside being quite unfavourable, a never-ending
story the past five to six weeks, I thought I would be somewhat
productive this particular moment and address this thread in an
analytical manner.

Anthony,

I really hope you get some clear skies soon. VERY soon. :-)

Mike Simmons

P.S. I'm really looking forward to your newest analemmas. You are the
unchallenged king of this photographic art.

Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:

Folks,

With weather outside being quite unfavourable, a never-ending
story the past five to six weeks, I thought I would be somewhat
productive this particular moment and address this thread in an
analytical manner.

Anthony,

I really hope you get some clear skies soon. VERY soon. :-)

Mike Simmons

P.S. I'm really looking forward to your newest analemmas. You are the
unchallenged king of this photographic art.