IRCnet also has a very high ratio in.eu. I believe they have one server in North America.
Yes, it's logical how the population grows and dies on Quakenet, but using the peak usercount, as opposed to an average one to judge the size of a network, is not. EFnet averages 12k more users, and at times has 30k more. Quakenet, at times, has 20k more than EFnet. Take a look at netsplit.de's daily readings for the two networks, and you'll see what I mean.
There is a project currently being worked on to take much more accurate statistics from the "Big 5". The fact is that DALnet and EFnet both retain their usercounts better during the whole day. The other three have peak times that give drastically higher user counts, which is what netsplit.de uses, and slow times, which are ignored.
Taking EFnet and Quakenet as examples, Quakenet's normal peak is roughly 20k more than EFnet's; however, Quakenet's slow period is roughly 30k users less than EFnet's. Normally, 5 of the 8 readings on netsplit.de have EFnet with a higher user count than Quakenet. Yet, Quakenet is #2 on their site, while EFnet is #5.
Ah, if only the Nick Delay/Time Stamp debate of '96 hadn't occured; this would be a moot point, as the original EFnet would likely have cleared 200k by this point.
Actually, netsplit.de is good and bad. Good in that the daily variations are good. Bad in that the *only* statistics that it uses are the *peak* daily user counts. Anyone with a shred of statistical knowlege can tell you that one reading per day is not statistically significant.
The fact is that, based on the 8 daily readings on netsplit.de, the order is this (and has been for a few months):
IRCnet
DALnet
EFnet
Undernet
Quakenet
IRCnet and DALnet are close (average in the low 90s), EFnet has about 87k, Undernet's near 81k, and Quakenet is at 75k.
JUPES actually does a lot more than that now. It can fix any kind of channel takeover by either opping the right people, or reversing channel modes and waiting for the right people to come on channel.
Slashdot Mirror
IRCnet also has a very high ratio in .eu. I believe they have one server in North America.
Yes, it's logical how the population grows and dies on Quakenet, but using the peak usercount, as opposed to an average one to judge the size of a network, is not. EFnet averages 12k more users, and at times has 30k more. Quakenet, at times, has 20k more than EFnet. Take a look at netsplit.de's daily readings for the two networks, and you'll see what I mean.
Grrr... goddamn formatting.
There is a project currently being worked on to take much more accurate statistics from the "Big 5". The fact is that DALnet and EFnet both retain their usercounts better during the whole day. The other three have peak times that give drastically higher user counts, which is what netsplit.de uses, and slow times, which are ignored.
Taking EFnet and Quakenet as examples, Quakenet's normal peak is roughly 20k more than EFnet's; however, Quakenet's slow period is roughly 30k users less than EFnet's. Normally, 5 of the 8 readings on netsplit.de have EFnet with a higher user count than Quakenet. Yet, Quakenet is #2 on their site, while EFnet is #5.
Ah, if only the Nick Delay/Time Stamp debate of '96 hadn't occured; this would be a moot point, as the original EFnet would likely have cleared 200k by this point.
Actually, netsplit.de is good and bad. Good in that the daily variations are good. Bad in that the *only* statistics that it uses are the *peak* daily user counts. Anyone with a shred of statistical knowlege can tell you that one reading per day is not statistically significant. The fact is that, based on the 8 daily readings on netsplit.de, the order is this (and has been for a few months): IRCnet DALnet EFnet Undernet Quakenet IRCnet and DALnet are close (average in the low 90s), EFnet has about 87k, Undernet's near 81k, and Quakenet is at 75k.
JUPES actually does a lot more than that now. It can fix any kind of channel takeover by either opping the right people, or reversing channel modes and waiting for the right people to come on channel.