How many “real” Dopers are there? Using a very conservative formula [ (UD>=100 hrs/yr) + (UD hrs (less than 100 hrs/yr)/yr)/100 hrs ] , where UD is an Unique Doper, i.e. excluding phantom Dopers, just how many Dopers are there in reality? I see the same Dopers responding to the same or similar postings all the time. I know this is a very touchy subject, but is StraightDope just a circle jerk of about 450 Dopers ("~45,000 members")? How many real Dopers do you think there are and what is the basis for your estimate (some sense of humor would be appreciated)?
What the hell are you talking about? 
I think he’s referring to the amount of active board members as opposed to the actual member count.
I have no idea.
If i am understanding “DrDoom’s” original post correctly the question that i think is being posed is ,"how many real dopers there are as oposed to dopers who post under various nicks.
Is this presumption correct DrDoom?
I can tell you… 2.
You and me. I just have 44,000 socks…
I’m convinced that we are all “virtual.”
The dopers that I have met at dopefests are, no doubt, body doubles–or whatever the term would be for computer simulations.
Of course, there was that cemetery lady…
Anecdotally I see the same 50 or so names quite often, and a rotating cast of extras that seem to be 100+ per month.
But I pay attention to only 2 forums, and only read maybe 1/3rd of each, with fairly predicatable taste. In my 6-ish months here (and 286 posts counting this one) I’m sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of regular readers who’ve never seen my words since their interests don’t coincide with mine.
The point is that selection bias is a major issue. What DrDoom sees, unless he reads every post in every forum, is a self-selected subset of SDMB reality.
Clearly someone could write a program to scan the sdmb and mine the usernames to develop a true profile of post count vs poster name. That’s probably a violation of the terms of use, so I’m not going to do it, nor advocate it. But the experiment could be run.
That would, of course, give us zero information about the many readers and it would also tell us nothing about how individual folks reading and writing behaviors differ. Some folks always read and never write, and I imagine there are folks who only write original posts and never write replies or read threads they didn’t start. And there’s doubtless every behavior in between. But in what mix?
I’m tired of seeing the term “circle jerk” applied to posting on a message board. Get a new term or shut up.
As to what the OP may have meant to ask, I’ve noticed that the core group of regulars seems to change over time. Look at any old linked thread and you’ll see mostly unfamiliar names. Then there are some who have stayed for years, posting on things which interest them.
And then there are people who sign up to comment on one thing only, never to be seen again, plus those who sign up but never post.
How many regular active posters are there in any given time period? Variable, to be sure, but far less than the total registered.
kabbes did some statistical analysis for an ATMB thread where we discussed related matters.
It’s uncertain how many people actively post, and ‘actively’ has no simple difinition. Some people go through cycles of post-frenzy and lurkerdom (like me). It would be very hard to tell without some kind of comprehensive SDMB Census.
If you send me a hundred bucks in the mail, I can show you who’s a real Dope.
Hanging on for the ride to ATMB.
What, you don`t love us anymore?
I loveded you, man! Loveded you like a brother!
Well, of course. LSL Guy is right. If you ask a medical question you’ll get a response from Qadgop the Mercotan. If you ask a question about planes, you’ll see Broomstick. If you ask a question about astrophysics, you’ll hear from Angua. If you ask about movies and music from the 1920s you’ll undoubtedly see Eve. If you ask about movies in general you’ll likely see Cervaise and lissener. If you pop into a thread about Lord of the Rings, you’ll see many of the same faces. American politics? Expect Diogenes the Cynic and Airman Doors, perhaps. But Cervaise isn’t a doctor; he won’t answer medical questions. And Angua is in the UK; she likely won’t discuss American politics.
What do you read about and who do you see? I’d say it’s pretty obvious that if you only pursue things that interest you that it’s irrational to expect others not to do the same.
Since the new format rolled out, is it the case that the “Views” column for each thread counts the number of different members who have opened that thread, rather than merely the number of times it has been opened by a few members, numerous times each?
If the former, it would be a useful measure of activity; that over a thousand members read the more popular threads.
Moved to ATMB.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
What a joke Xash! This was a quantative question, not an ATMB question, what ever the heck board that is? You, as a moderator, should know that “Cecil’s Teeming Millions” is probably only 450 or less “real” Dopers. SD displays all sorts of statistitics; threads, views, members, etc. … meaningless! SD could address this question very easily - display how many Dopers are in the SDMB forums at sign in (trivial) and “Dopers in Good Standing”, e.g. those who have spent more than 24 hrs, 50 hrs, or whatever hours it takes to make SD look good, in the SDMB’s over the past year.
I can’t address view counts vs unique views, “black matter” Dopers who just view threads, or phantom Doper views, since you killed this GQ thread.
Why don’t you just let the question be addressed in the appropriate forum instead of moving it to an obscure board so it just fades away?
Sorry, hot under the collar.
There are many decaffienated brands that taste just as good. Try one.
This forum is called About This Message Board. Where else could possibly be more appropriate for this thread?
Just answer the question as posed “About These Message Boards”, millions or hundreds. How hard is that question?
According to this site, these Boards have had over 13,000 visitors today.
Now, I don’t know how they count traffic, but if they count individual thread accesses, 450 regular Dopers would have to have opened ~29 threads today. I could probably be considered a somewhat regular visitor, and I sure don’t open that many threads every day. I realize that some portion of the total represents random visitors or irregular visitors. So, I think that just 450 dopers likely do not generate the traffic reported.
If they’re counting just site access, then the number of people involved every day is much larger than 450.
A few weeks ago I checked the number of posts in a 24 hour period - on a weekend, IIRC - and it was about 3,080.