(Maybe not completely OT, since it has to do with when threads die)

Anyway, the idea is that sometimes a post is made to an online forum (e.g.,
Usenet), and no one responds. Or, equivalently, the conversation just
stops at some point. This can be due to any one (or more) of a number of
reasons, and it is often impossible to determine which it is. Possible
reasons include:

1) The post is just stupid. Or any number of other, similar, reasons.
2) The post asks a question that nobody knows the answer to. It is
literally too hard for the audience.
3) Something went wrong technically, and the post never made it to be
visible to the outside world. This often happens when the poster
is new to the forum and/or the technology; sometimes you see the
post being made multiple times if the poster is not technically
savvy enough to know that sometimes there is a delay before the
post is visible.

and probably others I haven't thought of at the moment. Anyway, the point
of all this is given the nature of online forums, it is often hard for the
poster to know what the problem is. Now, what I'm looking for is the name
of this phenomenon. I remember reading that it had a name, which was the
name of the guy who made a point of identifying it. I seem to remember
that the guy's name was Bruce something and the last name also started with
a B. But I just can't remember it, and I couldn't find it via the Google
machine.

Anyone have any ideas?

P.S. Here's hoping this thread isn't an example of the phenomenon.

--
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.

- Napoleon Bonaparte -

bryanstybleistic?

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:11:30 PM UTC-7, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> (Maybe not completely OT, since it has to do with when threads die)
>
> Anyway, the idea is that sometimes a post is made to an online forum (e.g..,
> Usenet), and no one responds. Or, equivalently, the conversation just
> stops at some point. This can be due to any one (or more) of a number of
> reasons, and it is often impossible to determine which it is. Possible
> reasons include:
>

Had never heard of it but it is called the Bruce phenomenon.

Bard:
The phenomenon you is called the Bruce phenomenon, after Bruce E. Drushel, who first identified it in a 1996 article titled "The Bruce Phenomenon: Why Some Posts on Usenet Go Unanswered."

The Bruce phenomenon is the tendency for some posts on online forums to go unanswered, even when they are well-written and on-topic. There are a number of possible reasons for this, including:

The post is simply not interesting to the other forum users.
The post asks a question that is too difficult or obscure to answer.
The post is posted at an inconvenient time, when few people are online.
The post is technically flawed, and therefore not visible to other users.

In some cases, the Bruce phenomenon can be frustrating for the poster, who may not know why their post is not getting any responses.

However, it is important to remember that not all posts on online forums are meant to be answered. Some posts are simply a way for the poster to share their thoughts or ideas, and they do not necessarily require a response.

The Bruce phenomenon is a well-known phenomenon in the online community, and it has been the subject of a number of studies. However, there is no one definitive answer to the question of why some posts go unanswered. The reasons for the Bruce phenomenon are likely complex and multifaceted.

In article <885f7b1c-dac7-476c-9776-0b33c7688dc3n@googlegroups.com>,
Raul TW <raultenniswarehouse@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:11:30PM UTC-7, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> (Maybe not completely OT, since it has to do with when threads die)
>>
>> Anyway, the idea is that sometimes a post is made to an online forum (e.g.,
>> Usenet), and no one responds. Or, equivalently, the conversation just
>> stops at some point. This can be due to any one (or more) of a number of
>> reasons, and it is often impossible to determine which it is. Possible
>> reasons include:
>>
>
>Had never heard of it but it is called the Bruce phenomenon.
>
>Bard:
>The phenomenon you is called the Bruce phenomenon, after Bruce E. Drushel, who
>first identified it in a 1996 article titled "The Bruce Phenomenon: Why Some
>Posts on Usenet Go Unanswered."

Thanks! I guess I remembered just enough of it, to give you what you
needed to find it.

Just out of curiosity, how did you figure this out? What did you search on?

Again, out of curiosity, do you know *where* Bruce wrote/published his 1996
article on the subject?

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/DanaC

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 11:09:07 PM UTC-7, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <885f7b1c-dac7-476c...@googlegroups.com>,

> Just out of curiosity, how did you figure this out? What did you search on?
>
> Again, out of curiosity, do you know *where* Bruce wrote/published his 1996
> article on the subject?
>

I used Bard, which is an A.I. chat bot, but don't know if the answer is correct.
Bard is still under development and may give incorrect answers.
Suspect the answer is wrong because Google search fails to find the article..

In article <d11681b6-12aa-4d3c-bd14-ddff4c0ffe66n@googlegroups.com>,
Raul TW <raultenniswarehouse@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 11:09:07PM UTC-7, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> In article <885f7b1c-dac7-476c...@googlegroups.com>,
>
>> Just out of curiosity, how did you figure this out? What did you search on?
>>
>> Again, out of curiosity, do you know *where* Bruce wrote/published his 1996
>> article on the subject?
>>
>
>I used Bard, which is an A.I. chat bot, but don't know if the answer is correct.
>Bard is still under development and may give incorrect answers.
>Suspect the answer is wrong because Google search fails to find the article.

That's great! The problem with google (i.e., search engines - I'm using
the term google generically) is that it can't answer every question.

AI fixes that - it can answer (and will) every question, but it is often
wrong. But wrong is better than nothing, right?

Note: I've noticed (i.e., caught) Alexa giving answers that are clearly wrong.

(/s)

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Seneca

In article <885f7b1c-dac7-476c-9776-0b33c7688dc3n@googlegroups.com>,
Raul TW <raultenniswarehouse@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:11:30PM UTC-7, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> (Maybe not completely OT, since it has to do with when threads die)
>>
>> Anyway, the idea is that sometimes a post is made to an online forum (e.g.,
>> Usenet), and no one responds. Or, equivalently, the conversation just
>> stops at some point. This can be due to any one (or more) of a number of
>> reasons, and it is often impossible to determine which it is. Possible
>> reasons include:
>>
>
>Had never heard of it but it is called the Bruce phenomenon.
>
>Bard:
>The phenomenon you is called the Bruce phenomenon, after Bruce E.
>Drushel, who first identified it in a 1996 article titled "The Bruce
>Phenomenon: Why Some Posts on Usenet Go Unanswered."

Incidentally, this seems to be the guy:

https://miamioh.edu/profiles/cas/bruce-drushel.html

--
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

- John Kenneth Galbraith -