Has the SDMB lost critical mass?

The BBQ Pit
321

[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
lno was after the posters per day, I think. No easy way to get at that information though, at least not through the main interface. Apparently there’s a statistics and logs section where such data might be found, but it looks like it’s only for administrators.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know about comparative data for past times, but at the moment there are more than 400 users online, about 60% members and the rest guests. Based on that, and the average figure of 3,300 posts per day, I would guess that we probably have on the order of 1,000 posters per day (which would be an average of 3 posts per poster per day, which seems to me to be fairly typical). Could be more, if there is a lot of turnover during the day; could be less, if a lot of people are just lurking.

322

[QUOTE=lno]
Wow, how did I complete miss Dead Badger’s post half an hour before mine?
[/QUOTE]
He’s playing Doc Holliday so it was sequestered for a short while.

323

[QUOTE=lno]
What I was getting at was whether we had the same # of posters - which I did glean from the bottom of your linked post.That was my guess; that while the volume may be the same, we have fewer voices. Say, there’s only 200 people who post on a given day, whereas before we had 500 people, and those 200 people are self-selected over time as those who tend to post more than the average bear.
[/QUOTE]

Another data point: I just tabulated “new posts” which covered a period of about 3 hours. A total of 126 posts were made by 97 different posters. Of these I did not recognize about 27 names at all, which means they are either new or don’t post much; several of the others are individuals I recognize as having signed on within the past few months. So more than 28% of the posters who posted in the past 3 hours are either new or non-regulars.

The 97 posters made an average of 1.3 posts each, the maximum being 5 by a newbie. If that ratio is typical (and I have no idea if it is), it means that our daily total of 3,300 posts is being made by about 2,500 individuals, of whom over 700 are newbies.

324

[QUOTE=Colibri]
The 97 posters made an average of 1.3 posts each, the maximum being 5 by a newbie. If that ratio is typical (and I have no idea if it is), it means that our daily total of 3,300 posts is being made by about 2,500 individuals, of whom over 700 are newbies.
[/QUOTE]

:smack: Sorry, I’m going to retract that part of the calculation, since it is based on only a few hours. However, one could extrapolate to guess that of the 3,300 posts, non-regulars may make 1,000 of them.

325

[QUOTE=Colibri]
Certainly there are differences between 2003 and now. But there is no evidence for a decline over the last two years. And I don’t think a board that is averaging 24 new members and 3,000+ posts a day can exactly be considered moribund.

[/QUOTE]

Before P2P, about how many new users joined the SDMB every day?

On my little niche site, which is going on 400,000 posts total, during weekdays I average between 20 and 30 new members per day; justg a bit less than the Dope. Most of those new members are legit; there is one manual spammer every day or two. The spammers, the bulk from India and Pakistan, register by hand, because the site uses the mostly bot-proof vBulletin 3.6.8 with captchas enabled, the captcha uses additional custom fonts that the bots can’t crack, and the site has an extensive IP blacklist, blocking many Eastern European, Chinese, Indian and satellite ISPs and web hosting companies that are considered high-risk.

In the era before P2P, forum spam bots were nonexistent. Today, they’re commonplace. The SDMB uses an older version of vBulletin that, even if it had captchas enabled, would be at risk for bots; many Russian bots such as Xrumer have cracked the captchas for older versions of vBulletin. Occasionally, when I see a new user, the name is obviously spammy; other times, I’ll Google a name, and find it’s associated with hundreds or thousands of spam posts on other message boards.

I believe that, of those 20 to 30 new members a day – which isn’t much, considering the registration activity on my site – about half or more will be manual spammers or bots.

Sure, the SDMB may get 3,000 posts a day, which is pretty good for any message board. Still, when I look through threads and see post after post from Charter Members, it tells me there’s little new blood on the site. I know many pine for the old-timers that have drifted away, but what about those members that have never joined; those that would have signed up if it were not for the barrier of P2P? Think of what they could have contributed to the SDMB.

326

[QUOTE=elmwood]
Before P2P, about how many new users joined the SDMB every day?
[/quote]

See my post 268, linked to a few posts above.

But as has been remarked, pure registrations don’t tell you much. Most registrants, both before and after PTP, never post at all.

How many registrants post? How many are still posting after a month? What’s their posting rate?

See my post a couple above yours. A small sample shows that at least 28% of posts were made by “new blood.” Someone with more patience can get better data.

Sure, but AFAIK staying free was not really an option. And as far as actual data is concerned, no one has yet demonstrated that PTP has had a very serious impact on the board.

327

About P2P, let’s do some numbers.

How many active members are there? I know this is a number not talked about in public, but let’s highball it and say 4000.

Let’s imagine they all pay $15 a year (forgetting that charters pay half and they are about half of the membership).

That makes what, $60,000 a year in membership dues? And this is highballing way way high. My more honest math is about half that amount.

How hard can it be to get $60,000 from other sources and go to free? $60K is peanuts to the CR, even if they just absorbed the cost. Ads, donations, memorabilia, you name it, rasiing $60K shouldn’t be that much of an issue.

Am I too far off on my calculations?

328

I’m still very concerned by the attitudes of some people- as expressed in this thread - that people who were members before the board went Pay To Post are deemed to have used their Guest Membership- despite the multi-year gap between the boards going Pay To Post and the present day.

That’s hardly creating a culture of inclusiveness, IMHO.

329

Since we’re all doing statistics work, according to boardreader.com
Top ten posters for the week right now:
Diomedes (member 2006) 86
Santo Rugger (member 2006) 69
Blaster Master (member 2006) 59
eleanorigby (member 2002) 55
fetus (Charter 2003) 51
What Exit? (member 2005) 51
tdn (Charter 2000) 47
brazil84 (member 2007) 43
Sunspace (Charter 1999) 40
Elendil’s Heir (member 2004) 36

Top Ten Total: 537
Total Posts for Week: 5,966

So the top ten posters account for 9% of total posts. 193 or 3.2% posted by people from the pre-2003 “Golden Age”.

330

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
I’m still very concerned by the attitudes of some people- as expressed in this thread - that people who were members before the board went Pay To Post are deemed to have used their Guest Membership- despite the multi-year gap between the boards going Pay To Post and the present day.

That’s hardly creating a culture of inclusiveness, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been following that thread and I have to admit that I never realized that the last time the board was free was back in 1999.

331

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I’ve been following that thread and I have to admit that I never realized that the last time the board was free was back in 1999.
[/QUOTE]

So one guy makes a wrong “if I understand correctly” remark and you get all confused? As it happens, smart guy, if someone WAS last here in 1999 they would have left BEFORE the rule on socks was brought in, which was in January 2000. (the thread has been taken offline, but t=22212 if you mods have access)

332

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
I’m still very concerned by the attitudes of some people- as expressed in this thread - that people who were members before the board went Pay To Post are deemed to have used their Guest Membership- despite the multi-year gap between the boards going Pay To Post and the present day.

That’s hardly creating a culture of inclusiveness, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]

No kidding. I fled that thread in terror after samclen’s response. From anybody else, I would have thought that was an overdone snark. As an unchallenged answer from a mod, wow.

333

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I’ve been following that thread and I have to admit that I never realized that the last time the board was free was back in 1999.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll concede I may have made a chronological miscalculation in relation to when the board when Pay To Post (I hear a lot of the charter members calling themselves '99ers, I mistakenly thought this was when the board when Pay To Post).

Even so, 2003 (which is when it seems the board when Pay To Post) is near enough to five years ago, which is still an Ice Age ago in Internet time. Anyone who was a member Way Back Then and wants to return should be welcomed, not told to make with the readies or fuck off to the model message board down the road.

334

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Since we’re all doing statistics work, according to boardreader.com
Top ten posters for the week right now:
Diomedes (member 2006) 86
Santo Rugger (member 2006) 69
Blaster Master (member 2006) 59
eleanorigby (member 2002) 55
fetus (Charter 2003) 51
What Exit? (member 2005) 51
tdn (Charter 2000) 47
brazil84 (member 2007) 43
Sunspace (Charter 1999) 40
Elendil’s Heir (member 2004) 36

Top Ten Total: 537
Total Posts for Week: 5,966

So the top ten posters account for 9% of total posts. 193 or 3.2% posted by people from the pre-2003 “Golden Age”.
[/QUOTE]

What - I’m not in the top 10??

I demand a recount!!

I bet they didn’t count some of my posts that had hanging chads! Or they didn’t add up all my socks’ posts.* Or something. :smiley:

*Note to mods: that’s a joke, son. I’ve never, ever posted at the SDMB under any name besides RTFirefly, and have never tried to create another account here besides this one. I’m sure I’m a pain in the neck in assorted ways, but I’ve never done that.

335

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Since we’re all doing statistics work, according to boardreader.com
Top ten posters for the week right now:
Diomedes (member 2006) 86
Santo Rugger (member 2006) 69
Blaster Master (member 2006) 59
eleanorigby (member 2002) 55
fetus (Charter 2003) 51
What Exit? (member 2005) 51
tdn (Charter 2000) 47
brazil84 (member 2007) 43
Sunspace (Charter 1999) 40
Elendil’s Heir (member 2004) 36

Top Ten Total: 537
Total Posts for Week: 5,966

So the top ten posters account for 9% of total posts. 193 or 3.2% posted by people from the pre-2003 “Golden Age”.
[/QUOTE]

I have a feeling the top three posters are all posting in the same thread. Does anyone else find this suspicious? ** Vote: Santo Rugger **

336

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
I’ll concede I may have made a chronological miscalculation in relation to when the board when Pay To Post (I hear a lot of the charter members calling themselves '99ers, I mistakenly thought this was when the board when Pay To Post).

Even so, 2003 (which is when it seems the board when Pay To Post) is near enough to five years ago, which is still an Ice Age ago in Internet time. Anyone who was a member Way Back Then and wants to return should be welcomed, not told to make with the readies or fuck off to the model message board down the road.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure that giving the “old guard” an extra free turn while refusing this gift to newbies won’t ignite an opposing shitstorm about how we are playing favorites and/or treating newbies unfairly.

337

[QUOTE=Sapo]
How hard can it be to get $60,000 from other sources and go to free? $60K is peanuts to the CR, even if they just absorbed the cost. Ads, donations, memorabilia, you name it, rasiing $60K shouldn’t be that much of an issue.

Am I too far off on my calculations?
[/QUOTE]

I have no idea how correct your calculations are. However, you are very far off in the way that commercial businesses work.

338

[QUOTE=Sapo]
No kidding. I fled that thread in terror after samclen’s response. From anybody else, I would have thought that was an overdone snark. As an unchallenged answer from a mod, wow.
[/QUOTE]

My, my. I had no idea you were such a delicate flower. Considering how snarky you were being in that thread, I have to regard this as monumentally hypocritical.

339

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
As it happens, smart guy, if someone WAS last here in 1999 they would have left BEFORE the rule on socks was brought in, which was in January 2000. (the thread has been taken offline, but t=22212 if you mods have access)
[/QUOTE]
We have no access to threads which have been archived.

340

OK, been too busy to post, sorry. I know you missed me.

Thanks for some hard numbers, Colibri. They seem believable enough to me, and I’ve been pondering what they might mean, as I must acknowledge that there has not been a severe drop in posts over the past year or even six months.

I’m curious as to whether certain forums have strengthened since P2P and others weakened, so that overall post count for the board has remained the same while the character of the board overall has changed.

In GQ, it seems almost certain that sloughing off irregular posters (who don’t want to pay) and putting up barriers for lurkers to post (even though they can be a “guest” for the nonce, they can’t remain one for long) has affected the number and type of posts. This phenomenon is something that people commented upon immediately after P2P as well.

My guess is that certain forums like MPSIMS and IMHO are more conducive to a long-term, community-like feel, and thus could gradually accrue participants in the P2P era. I haven’t participated there much, so I can’t comment on how they’ve changed or not.

The above hypothesis could easily be confirmed or falsified by looking at what percentage of posts were going to which forums over time, although doing so would require some more detailed stats.

Thanks!