As of May 2002, there were over 250 dopers with over 1000 posts, according to an enumeration made at that time.
My wag is between 600 and 800, but possibly over 1000.
Homer!
Count me as 15.
If Colibri is correct, then we have only 985 more to go!
Sweet 16 here - 984 to go 
In this thread, you skipped bibliophage and me.
I suspect your estimate then of over 1000 now is reasonable.
Well. I was only off by an order of magnitude. :rolleyes:
Cute. “Factual Questions” were to be submitted on the GQ forum, where this one was. It is obvious that anything about SD will be moved, factual or not. I don’t think there are any more than 450 dopers in good standing. So far, it looks like there will be far less … …
Why do you think this? Do you think 44,073 members have been banned?
Or are you just talking about active members (ones that have posted in the past few months)? Even so, there would probably be at least several thousand in this category.
Well let’s see. We average about 42 new registered posters each day. Let’s call a poster active if they’ve posted within the last three months. Let’s also assume that only half of the new registered posters actually post. That calculation alone gives us approximately 1,890 active posters.
And those are just the newbies.
Erm, yep. Factual Questions. That’s where I found it, in the GQ forum. That’s also where I found three similar questions about the SDMB readership asked by three different new users in the last month, and they all got moved to ATMB despite their factual nature.
I think the moderators have demonstrated time and again that they aren’t interested in producing statistics of individual users or unique hits or Who’s Logged On Right Now. If only they’d post something that indicated their policy on… oh, wait, they have. It’s right here in About This Message Board:
(Bolding mine.) This doesn’t specifically answer why they don’t give out statistical analyses on the user base, but since the only people who really want to know this seem to be advertisers—and since the SDMB doesn’t permit ads in the fora—then I gotta ask, who cares?
I am not a mod, but I also think it would be a terrible, terrible thing to create some kind of magical statistic like “Dopers in Good Standing” based purely upon post count or longevity. You don’t see a lot of stupid postcount-padding behavior here and I like it that way. As long as it doesn’t violate board policy, a user with 1 post deserves an answer to his question; and as long as he provides good citations to back up his facts, a new user with 1 post can answer someone’s question. Conversely, long-time users with 17,000 posts aren’t given extra slack if they act like jerks.
If you have posting privileges, you’re in good standing.
Define a person with over 1000 posts as a “regular”. We currently have 4.5 million posts. If we assume that half of those posts are made by regulars, and that the average number of posts per regular is 10000, then we arrive at a lower bound of 225 regulars. If, on the other hand, we assume that all posts are made by regulars, and that all regulars have exactly 1000 posts, then we arrive at a strong upper bound of 4500 regulars. The latter set of figures is certainly too liberal, and I strongly suspect that the first set is too conservative, so the true value should lie somewhere in between. At a rough guess, I’d say probably around 700 regulars.
And while this question is indisputably factual, it’s also indisputably about this message board. In such cases, the sorting criterion gives precedence to ATMB.
I’ve poked around a bit in the administrator control panel, and I don’t find any way of determining how many users have a post count >X. There may very well be such a function, but I didn’t find it, and this version of vBulletin does not have a manual so that I can look it up.
A moderator whom has always shown a lot of class and reason over the years … Recognizing you probably have access to inside information, I still think you are on the high side for the number of “regulars.” I you were to use posts over the last year, instead of 4.5 million since inception, and # of posts by regulars last year, would your rough guess remain the same?
Baba Booey.
Thank you, DrDoom, but I haven’t been a moderator for some years now. That estimate wasn’t based on insider information, since any insider information I once had is now hopelessly out of date. All I was using was the publicly-available total number of posts, and my own observations of what constitutes an extreme post count (there are only a dozen or so above ten thousand, and I don’t think anyone has reached 20,000, so 10,000 seems like a good upper bound on the average posts per regular).
And I’m aware that I’m using a nonstandard definition of “regular”, which is why I explicitly defined the term as I was using it. I know that there are kiloposters who no longer post, but the set of posters I was discussing was that which the OP asked about. So no, it wouldn’t be proper to limit the statistics to the past year, since that’s not what the OP asked.
“kiloposter” is a very cool word.
I still think of myself as a lurker, because my read-to-post ratio is so high, and only about a tenth of my posts get past the preview stage.
And now I see that preview does not reveal total post count, but I’m pretty sure I remember it topping 1000.
Or even more. I know I have a VERY low post count but I am here roughly twice a day reading for at least an hour or two.
Just because we don’t post often (the lurkers) doesn’t mean we aren’t members in good standing or regulars, does it?
In theory, a statistical estimate could be made using 1.) the number of registered users, 2.) the number of posts, and 3.) kabbes’ hypothesis. Assuming, of course, a logarithmic increase in the Doper population. 
-cityboy916
soon to be kiloposter
If you’re here daily for a couple of hours a day, I’d say you were definitely a regular. If you haven’t had any warnings, then you’re in good standing. You probably are not well known, however, which is what some people mean by “regulars”. IMO, most posters SHOULD do a lot of lurking. Making a lot of posts does not necessarily make you a GOOD poster.
I don’t know why I didn’t see this earlier. However, I don’t see any place in the admin control panel where I could run this sucker. I know that there’s quite a few functions that can ONLY be done in the physical presence of the server, in other words, only the Chi Reader techs can hardwire a new admin or mod into the system. I cannot promote someone to admin or mod myself, even though the vBulletin software permits me to do so, because of the various firewalls and other safety features that the techs at the Reader have set up.
Those same techs are quite busy elsewhere, and don’t work the night shift, so the chance of this happening is pretty much zero. They have a lot of other things on their “To Do” list. They might run that thing out of curiousity if they’re there anyway, but I wouldn’t count on it.