Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: mukti <shunpiker@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Cc: kali9putra@yahoo.com
Message-Id: <4868f468-7560-4510-a3df-7d0a15def5c7@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1410966712.92433.YahooMailNeo@web181105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <5ebfd7de-df4d-4bac-90e9-08d182557c8c@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2fS+WaE5_P-Lx=ALcsNYe8zSQQuk-S9X8orSaWKJCda-A@mail.gmail.com> <863e6344-9008-44be-8546-eed800c0a630@googlegroups.com>
 <1410966712.92433.YahooMailNeo@web181105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Growth and decline in lojbanistan
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_793_800885720.1410994428113"
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_793_800885720.1410994428113
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:11:54 PM UTC-3, clifford wrote:

> There was then a dearth of interesting problems for a while.  I am not 
> sure that that one controversy and its two main participants should be used 
> to make any general claims about Lojban's popularity, etc.
>

To be clear, I'm not trying to measure *popularity* so much as *activity *-- 
not how many people have been exposed to lojban or what their sentiments 
are towards it, but rather, the extent to which people are actively 
discussing and using lojban. For these purposes, an extended debate about 
some aspect of lojban is a positive indicator. A lack of "interesting 
problems" -- problems and/or interest -- registers as a negative 
indication. (Disgusted silence would also count as a negative -- it seems 
to me that it ought to!)

Activity is a difficult thing to measure. Gleki suggested including tiki 
edits, which ties in with lojbab's observations about how communications 
have diffused across different channels over time. I'm interested to hear 
other suggestions about how to construct a more complete account of the use 
of lojban over time. It's my hope that such measurements can play a part in 
future policy discussions.

mi'e la mukti mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

------=_Part_793_800885720.1410994428113
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:11:54 PM UTC-3, c=
lifford wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: =
0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div><=
div style=3D"color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue,Hel=
vetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div><=
span>There was then a dearth of interesting problems for a while. &nbsp;I a=
m not sure that that one controversy and its two main participants should b=
e used to make any general claims about Lojban's popularity, etc.</span></d=
iv></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To be clear, I'm not trying=
 to measure&nbsp;<i>popularity</i>&nbsp;so much as&nbsp;<i>activity&nbsp;</=
i>-- not how many people have been exposed to lojban or what their sentimen=
ts are towards it, but rather, the extent to which people are actively disc=
ussing and using lojban. For these purposes, an extended debate about some =
aspect of lojban is a positive indicator. A lack of "interesting problems" =
-- problems and/or interest -- registers as a negative indication. (Disgust=
ed silence would also count as a negative -- it seems to me that it ought t=
o!)</div><div><br></div><div>Activity is a difficult thing to measure. Glek=
i suggested including tiki edits, which ties in with lojbab's observations =
about how communications have diffused across different channels over time.=
 I'm interested to hear other suggestions about how to construct a more com=
plete account of the use of lojban over time. It's my hope that such measur=
ements can play a part in future policy discussions.</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>mi'e la mukti mu'o</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_793_800885720.1410994428113--