Is threading better on Usenet or gmane?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2016-04-11, Grant Edwards <invalid at invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-04-11, Grant Edwards <invalid at invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> I just finished checking a very recent thread containing 67 articles
> by pointing slrn at news.panix.com for the Usenet version and at
> news.gmane.com for the mailing-list version.
[...]
> On the Usenet side, 35 of 67 articles had unavailable parent
> articles,
[...]
> On the mailing-list side 15 of 67 had unavailable parent articles,

FWIW, an automated test on the 1000 most recent articles showed this:

                         Usenet   Gmane
        No References      69      104
   Unavailable Parent     357       34

Due to moderation/filtering, the set of articles from the two servers
probably isn't identical.

For posts that aren't follow-ups, no references is normal, but I'm
surprised by the size of the difference in number of articles with no
references header.

An unavailable parent means that there _was_ a refrences header, but
the most recent reference didn't map to an available article on the
server in question.

In general, the situation appears to be significantly better on Gmane
-- even if we assume that the excess number of "no reference"
ariticles on Gmane indicates those articles are broken and should have
references.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Let me do my TRIBUTE
                                  at               to FISHNET STOCKINGS ...
                              gmail.com