On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:54:12 +0000, Stewart Robert Hinsley
<{$news$}@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In message <lgmbr35u6q0cbk1m2o33uhr9u5lumh4thi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, nanook
><no_one@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:05:07 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>IIRC your BI == 1. No sweat.
>>Sorry, I'm in my second half century, translation please?
>
>Originally spam referring to excess multiple posting of substantially
>similar material to Usenet. The Briedbart Index (BI) is a means of
>putting a number to it, taking the degree of crossposting, and frequency
>of posting, into account. The consensus is (was?) that posts with a BI
>above a certain value (20?) were fair game for 3rd party cancellation -
>the value was intended to detect spam without giving false positives
>from this like the regular posting of FAQs.
>
>You were not the first person to announce the release of this particular
>Brush novel, so by a definition where the identity of the author is not
>relevant (necessary to include all "Make Money Fast" posts under the
>rubric of spam") the BI was greater than 1, but still well below the
>traditional threshold.
>
>In current usage spam is more widely, and less precisely, defined. To
>some, the commercial element (the exhortation to make a donation) of
>your post pushes it over the line.
>
>(Note that encouraging people to pay for fanfic is disapproved of for
>various reasons, including that it is inimical to tolerance of fanfic by
>rights holders.)
Your last () is new to me, I've been reading SF for 40+ years, but
have not been involved in fandom other than attending a couple of
WorldComs decades ago. That certainly makes sense and I won't make
that mistake again.
Thanks.
|
