Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate

CHAPTER 6. ANALYZING THE TALK.ABORTION NEWSGROUP 85
Table 6.2: Categorization of Authors by Number of Messages
Author Type # of
Authors
Cum.
Authors
% of
Authors
Cum.
% of
Authors
% of
Total
Posts
Cum.
% of
Total
Posts
Min.
# of
Posts
Per
Author
Mean
# of
Posts
Per
Author
Very Frequent 15 15 0.5% 0.5% 45% 45% 594 1,392
Frequent 60 75 2.0% 2.5% 25% 70% 81 196
Occassional 75 150 2.5% 5% 9% 79% 34 51
Infreqeunt 149 299 5% 10% 7% 86% 15 22
Very Infrequent 692 991 23% 33% 9% 95% 3 6
Two-time 423 1,115 14% 47% 2% 97% 2 2
One-time 1,575 2,989 53% 100% 3% 100% 1 1
The complete categorization scheme based on frequency is provided in Table 6.2.
Additional descriptive statistics summarizing key measures, are provided in Table
6.3 on the following page. This analysis is supplemented by Figures C.1, C.2,
C.3 and C.4 in Appendix C on page 167. All measures are strongly correlated with
the number of messages posted, but individually provide additional description of
the nature of behavior associated with each author type.
The first measure to be examined is the number of threads contributed to. The
number of threads contributed to (hereafter, simply threads) is an indicator of
an author’s breadth of discussion. A larger number of threads may indicate a
wider range of engagement and discussion than a smaller number of threads. As
shown in Table 6.3 on the following page, all authors contributed to an average
of 8 threads; however, 75 percent of all authors contributed to only one or two
threads. The median number of threads declines by nearly 85 percent as we move
from very frequent authors to frequent authors, by 70 percent as move move from
frequent to occasional authors, and by 50 percent as we move from occasional to
infrequent authors. Nearly identical patterns are seen as we move down through
the categories along the 75th percentile. The high correlation between threads
and number of messages posted (r=.98, see Figure C.2 on page 169 indicates that
posting behavior to threads may be similar for different types of authors. However,
a contrasting pattern emerges when comparing the ratio of messages to threads
across different author groups. This ratio is a measure of depth of discussion;