Has the SDMB lost critical mass?

The BBQ Pit
281

[QUOTE=John DiFool]
I know I belong to a small minority, but I would really like to see avatars and some limited (read: strict limits on size) image posting allowed. Keep in mind I grew up on various low-tech BBSes and Usenet, so the look here isn’t really bothersome, but is is “quaint”, to be polite (oh I’m in the Pit? Then “Looks as dull as shit”).

Interesting that virtually every post in this thread is from a Charter Member (or at least someone long term)-well, 6 pages later, we already know what they think, ad nauseum. Who we need to hear from are the young bloods here on these issues-what is it about the board which attracts and/or repulses you? Someone should run a poll or something…
[/QUOTE]

I could live with a small static avatars, especially as we can turn them of in our user options.

I think you missed the number of members and guest that posted to this thread.
Click on the numbers of replies to see the breakdown on who posted.

Jim

282

I started reading the board in high school, posted for a while, paid the initial subscription fee when the board went pay-to-post, let my membership lapse for a couple of years, and only recently renewed my subscription.

I agree that discussion was far more lively and interesting around three to four years ago.

I think that the problem is that this board is so damn difficult to start posting on.

First of all, you have the weird stratification of charter members vs. guests. It’s not at all uncommon for someone to make a note on someone’s “guest” status; in Great Debates epsecially, a question posed by a guest that doesn’t meet that board’s high standards for posting is often discarded, and the OP taken to task for having posted it in the first place.

Secondly, you have to read this board for a long time to figure out what you can and can’t say without getting piled on for some stupid reason. It’s hard to even make jokes a lot of the time; a poster will either get ganged up on for accidentally offending some obscure niche of society, or someone will read too much into it and derail the thread into some incredibly boring series of nitpicks. Trying to carry on any kind of normal, friendly dialog without getting dragged into the pit or having your thread derailed into inanity is difficult if you’re not familiar not only with the general tone of the board, but the individual personalities who post here.

Given the time and money someone has to put in to become a regular, not-hated poster here, I’m not surprised that new posters aren’t exactly signing up in droves.

I know that I spend a lot more time and post a lot more on boards where I don’t have to worry about being dragged into a 30-page pit thread because I made a joke about a fat guy or something.

283

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I don’t consider that reasonable, including guests as members. What’s the conversion rate from guests to paid members? I think it’s abysmally, embarrassingly low. So people come as guests and leave as guests and never have a chance to become part of things.

And I’d imagine a goodly chunk of those “guests” are the same people, over and over.
[/QUOTE]

We can’t really say, or at least I do not have that information. But the number of registrants who actually become regularly participating members of the board has always been quite low, even when membership was free. Even before pay-to-post, a large majority of the people who registered didn’t even make a single post. But the figures, such as they are, provide no indication that the board is in such dire straits as some people would like to believe.

Whatever the case, between paid members and guests we have maintained a rate of about 3,300 posts per day or better for the last four years. Obviously, *
somebody* is getting some use out of this place.

ETA: Unless you include both guests and members, there is no way to compare figures from before and after PTP. Before PTP basically everyone was a guest, but with a membership that did not expire. But only a small percentage of registrants back then ever continued to post for more than a month anyway.

284

[QUOTE=John DiFool]
… Interesting that virtually every post in this thread is from a Charter Member (or at least someone long term)-well, 6 pages later, we already know what they think, ad nauseum. Who we need to hear from are the young bloods here on these issues-what is it about the board which attracts and/or repulses you? Someone should run a poll or something…
[/QUOTE]
except that the majority of those with valid concerns would not be able to post. any polls from the current membership would be from the few who have already decided to stay, for better or for worse.

285

[QUOTE=Colibri]
ETA: Unless you include both guests and members, there is no way to compare figures from before and after PTP. Before PTP basically everyone was a guest, but with a membership that did not expire. But only a small percentage of registrants back then ever continued to post for more than a month anyway.
[/QUOTE]

But the problem is that then people didn’t have a reason to create new accounts all the time. Now, they do. We aren’t gaining readers if the same damned people are coming back time after time after time after time after time. The attempt to root out socks compounds the problem. One person can be responsible for dozens of usernames a month. Note: I’m not saying that happens, just that we don’t know if it’s happening. All that churn can be from a handful of people.

(And since we’ve been told how we’re doomed without pay-to-post, guests who don’t pay would be a net drain.)

286

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
One person can be responsible for dozens of usernames a month. Note: I’m not saying that happens, just that we don’t know if it’s happening. All that churn can be from a handful of people.

[/QUOTE]
Actually, we know. Sock posts during a typical month’s time would be less than 1% of the posts.

As far as registering of names is concerned, I would make an educated guess that less than 1-2% of new names are socks, usually just one asshole who does it an incredible number of times.

287

I usually don’t participate in these threads by actually complaining about this board. I prefer making silly analogies and other comments. However, I am participating in several threads today, which will likely rocket my daily average to unimaginable heights, and I am running in to a 60 second wait imposed between posts.

Yeah, I know, stop post padding blah fuck blah, stop spamming blah fuck blah, it’s stupid and I hate it. The two minute search wait is bad enough, but a post wait… Stupid, stupid, stupid.

288

[QUOTE=FordPrefect]

The two minute search wait is bad enough, but a post wait… Stupid, stupid, stupid.
[/QUOTE]
I believe the reason behind that posting time limit is to prevent a bot program from crashing the server. It goes down often enough without the potential problem of a malicious attack.

289

[QUOTE=samclem]
Actually, we know. Sock posts during a typical month’s time would be less than 1% of the posts.
[/QUOTE]

What percent of the 70000 usernames have been used by socks?

And you appear to be assuming that the only socks are those you catch. Are you assuming that?

Considering that we’ve had “socks” who have only been apprehended after they admitted their sockery, I would find it strange if the mods thought that all socks were identifiable and had been identified.

290

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
What percent of the 70000 usernames have been used by socks?

And you appear to be assuming that the only socks are those you catch. Are you assuming that?

Considering that we’ve had “socks” who have only been apprehended after they admitted their sockery, I would find it strange if the mods thought that all socks were identifiable and had been identified.
[/QUOTE]

Are you counting the spammers as socks? Seperating the category would probably be hard for anyone running the board.

291

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]

And you appear to be assuming that the only socks are those you catch. Are you assuming that?

Considering that we’ve had “socks” who have only been apprehended after they admitted their sockery, I would find it strange if the mods thought that all socks were identifiable and had been identified.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that seems a wildly overconfident statement, samclem. Though there may be a disconnect. You may be only thinking of “bad socks”, people who were properly banned and want to post again, even if not trolling. I have a feeling there a large number of socks that just sign up to ask an honest question or two in IMHO or GQ and then disappear again and just create another one if they have a new question in a couple of months. Of course, maybe you don’t really want to go to any real effort to catch that kind of sock but I have a feeling they make up a majority of sock accounts. Pretty hard to come up with a percentage on them, I would think.

292

I no longer visit frequently enough to comment on the validity of the observation that “the SDMB isn’t what it used to be”, but I can comment on my own behavior. It’d be inappropriate to say that my behavior can be generalized. But it’d also be a stretch to say that my behavior is unique.

I am much less engaged than I used to be.

At one time I was addicted to the Dope. I’d go into withdrawals if I didn’t check every fora multiple times per day. I spent a ton of time right before we went to P2P to try and figure out how many active posters there really were, in order to guess how many people might pony-up the money. ( Earthling took my original [calculations to greater heights]](Life, Death, and Exile (SDMB stats, extremely long) - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board)). I’d write little reminder notes to myself on thread ideas. I’d correspond regularly with TubaDiva. I even played a minor role in the “renaming” of MPSIMS, though it still isn’t particularly a popular forum description. I used to regularly sponsor between 5-10 Dopers who didn’t feel they had the resources to pay the fees after we went to P2P. I’d go out of my way to write a welcome note to new members. Etc.

I was never a prolific or erudite poster – but I was involved. I’m not trying to brag about my participation or miniscule contributions – just trying to provide concrete evidence of my behavior.

Heck, now I don’t even know what my post-count is. I’ll find out after I post this I guess, but I think it’s over 2000. In the last three years I’ve probably posted a dozen or fewer times, so almost all my posting was done during my first three years. I certainly fit the demographic of “still a member but doesn’t post as much”. Sometimes a month will go by without even visiting the SDMB, much less posting. I’ve never been a regular reader in the Pit, but was made aware of this thread via a link elsewhere (perhaps ATMB?).

Anyway, the important question to this discussion is probably “why?” Why am I not engaged as much as I used to be? As I’ve read through this thread I found myself agreeing with virtually all the reasons speculated. It all applies to me. If you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I guess I’d say that there are two major reasons I drifted away – first, it seemed like every topic has been discussed before; and second, this place just didn’t seem as funny as it used to be.

Are those attributes still true? (Were they ever true?) I don’t know. For all I know this place is more vibrant and hilarious than it ever was. Yet the OP observes the opposite and many Dopers agree.

Metaphorically, the SDMB feels like the 1960s – it was a joyous and exciting happenin’ time, and while hippies still exist, they are only a faint remnant of their golden age. I feel nostalgia.

I recognize that it might just be me. However, to paraphrase an observation of Douglas Hofstader in Metamagical Themas: it would be a mistake to assume that you’re the only one who feels the way you do.

What to do about the real or perceived problem? I don’t have the answer, but I wholeheartedly agree with RTFirefly’s observation:

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
The problem, though, continues to be the disconnect between the people who care about this board and would benefit from its improvement (us) and the people who are in a position to do something about it (the CR). Until that’s fixed, all the suggestions in the world are meaningless.
[/QUOTE]

293

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Yeah, that seems a wildly overconfident statement, samclem. Though there may be a disconnect. You may be only thinking of “bad socks”, people who were properly banned and want to post again, even if not trolling. I have a feeling there a large number of socks that just sign up to ask an honest question or two in IMHO or GQ and then disappear again and just create another one if they have a new question in a couple of months. Of course, maybe you don’t really want to go to any real effort to catch that kind of sock but I have a feeling they make up a majority of sock accounts. Pretty hard to come up with a percentage on them, I would think.
[/QUOTE]
To some extent, you may be right. As I’ve said before, a person who wants to come back, set up a new account, and not flaunt their presence, can do so pretty easily. Unfortunately for the general group of returnee’s, they seem to have a fatal flaw(which possibly relates to why they got shit-canned in the first place). Many, if not most, are incapable of posting without drawing attention to their posts. As a jackbooted emmissary of Cecil, this makes my job easier. Either I or another Mod/Admin spots their post, or they get reported by eagle-eyed posters who remember their style or a story they repeated.

Let’s take yesterday, 8 November 2008, as an example of who registered/posted, etc.

34 people successfully registered. 8 posted at least one post. There were a total of 20 posts from those 8 posters. IMHO, none of those posters were returnees. Can I prove it? No. But their posting pattern, interests, suggests that they are new people who registered to comment on a very specific topic that was of interest to them. Yesterday, there were approximately 3,300 posts to the board. 20 of these posts were from new registrants. Negligible.

Of the 24 people who registered and posted nothing, again using my experience of looking at people registering and reading posts, only 1-2 will ever post anything to the SDMB. I will hazard a guess that at least 10-15 of them are bots, both human and electronic, who registered to post spam.

294

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Are you counting the spammers as socks? Seperating the category would probably be hard for anyone running the board.
[/QUOTE]

I was not counting spammers as socks, just trying to point out that there are ways in which saying “we have X number of usernames taken” doesn’t really tell us anything. I wasn’t thinking of spammers which appear to account for many additional usernames taken. (Is spam up or down since the days before pay-to-post? My guess would be up, but that really is just a guess.)

I just don’t think we can say that guest memberships show much at all about the health of the board. Guests who decide to stay, sure.

295

[QUOTE=samclem]
Yesterday, there were approximately 3,300 posts to the board. 20 of these posts were from new registrants. Negligible.
[/QUOTE]

Just to be clear, I never said that I thought guests were adding much to the post count. What I wondered is how many of those signing up were actually even potentially “new members” versus how many were just returnees. It sounds like some could be returnees, and even more are spammers.

I’m only talking about this stat because it was offered as evidence that the board is in okay health. I don’t think that the data show anything about the health of the board. If we have a million new members a day and all are spammers we’re not going to do very well (and all the cool names would be GONE).
(I also begin to wonder how much a thread like this is contributing to post counts. The first rule of post counts is you can’t count posts that are talking about post counts.)

296

OK, just because I’m a lame-ass and will do just about anything than face the holiday traffic home, I just spent the last hour going through all the registrations for this past September. Make of this data point what you will.

The first name to be registered on September 1, 2007 was user #69823, newtradingfuturess (now a guest). The last to be registered on September 30, 2007, was user #70570, McBoneHead (now also a guest). They and 745 others all signed up on the board during the month, but only 14 have gone on to become paying members of varying levels of contribution (at least 3 of them are paying lurkers with no posts):

69904 indian
69919 Daniel Sug
69931 Sanity Challenged
69945 orinoko
69956 ShadowFacts
69967 SeaDragonTattoo
69992 MonaLizaT
70005 TripleTee
70017 T. Denoire
70058 Sublata
70214 Sleeps With Butterflies
70455 SharkB8
70475 procida
70517 Natch!

297

[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
OK, just because I’m a lame-ass and will do just about anything than face the holiday traffic home, I just spent the last hour going through all the registrations for this past September. Make of this data point what you will.

[/QUOTE]

That’s neat.

I hope those members do a vanity search and come here to see what the hell we’re talking about.

298

I’ve been reading this thread with some interest, and the statistics that are being pulled out are quite interesting- but also a little unsettling.

Not from a “Wow, we’re not getting any new members” definition of “Unsettling”, but more “The people on this board will actually track down the new members and analyse their posts to determine the likelihood of Sockery” :eek:

Not that I’m an aluminium-foil* hat wearing paranoid type, but I think it’s quite telling that people here are that worried about Socks Dramatic Chord that the presumption is that all new posters are either Socks, Trolls, or n00bs who can’t use Wikipedia or Google. Not a good direction for us to be heading in, IMHO.

Also, I’ve noticed the board getting a LOT more political lately- it’s all “Iraq war/US Politicians/Religious Groups are taking over!”, which- to this Non-American, at least- is about as exciting as watching the Director’s Cut of Paint Drying, starring Kevin Costner.

I’m confident things will pick up, but it is a bit disheartening to come back after being at work all day and seeing the same posts on the front page, with only a couple of replies. On the other hand, it does mean I’m more likely to go through the other pages of the various forums, in the hopes of finding and interesting topic that I might have otherwise missed- so it’s not all bad, but neither is it a particularly desirable state of affairs for a board with so much potential.

*It’s easier to find than tin foil :wink:

299

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I’m only talking about this stat because it was offered as evidence that the board is in okay health. I don’t think that the data show anything about the health of the board. If we have a million new members a day and all are spammers we’re not going to do very well (and all the cool names would be GONE).
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I brought it up because Aeschines stated:

Aeschines was apparently indicating that such a figure *would * indicate something about the “health of the board.”

Now, I would agree that we can’t really tell a whole lot from just the number of registrations. But then we never could. As samclem’s figures indicate, most registrants never even post. And it was the same before PTP as well.

What we can tell at least is that the number of registrants has gone up in the last year, not down. While I can’t prove it, I would guess that the number of active posters, and guests who become paying members, probably has some correlation with the number of registrants, even if it’s a low percentage of them.

Of course, if the figures I cited had shown the numbers of registrants was going down over the last year, I’m sure it would have been seized on as definitive evidence that the board was doomed.

300

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
Also, I’ve noticed the board getting a LOT more political lately- it’s all “Iraq war/US Politicians/Religious Groups are taking over!”, which- to this Non-American, at least- is about as exciting as watching the Director’s Cut of Paint Drying, starring Kevin Costner.[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was. You weren’t here during the 2000 election.