Spanners. Love you, baby. I do. But this - especially the bolded part - simply isn’t held up by facts available. Yes, yes, yes, there’s a strong belief that the SDMB IS the debate angle. But it’s not. That’s just putting on airs.
Let’s look at the available data.
I just compiled the data from # of threads and # of posts available on the front page. So let’s look at engagement - or a substitute for engagement from data I
Spanners. Love you, baby. I do. But this - especially the bolded part (bolding mine) - simply isn’t held up by facts available. Yes, yes, yes, there’s a strong belief that the SDMB IS the debate angle. But it’s not. That’s just putting on airs.
Let’s look at the available data.
I just compiled the data from # of threads and # of posts available on the front page. So let’s look at engagement - or a substitute for engagement from data I can get.
Here’s the raw data:
Threads Posts
General Questions 237833 3306667
Great Debates 44410 2583163
Elections 5690 425701
Cafe Society 140889 3846387
In My Humble Opinion 116093 3436949
MPSIMS 143182 3620373
BBQ Pit 40225 2625814
Note: I discounted ATMB, Game Room, Thread Games, Marketplace and Comments.
The places where long-running actual soi-disant ‘discussion’ happens constitute less than 7% of threads, Great Debates is 6.1% and Elections is 0.78%. Combining those two - which seems fair because Elections really split off from Great Debates and many of the same people are the heaviest posters in both - gives us 6.88% of threads.
So in terms of number of threads, posters on the SDMB are much more interested in anything other than debate and discussion. Discounting the Pit - which I’d bet sees a lot of overlap with GD and Elections in terms of posters - every other forum has a much higher number of threads (as a percentage of threads) than GD and Elections. Hell, even COMBINING GD, Elections and the Pit they only constitute 12.4% of threads. GQ contributes 32.65% all on it’s own. Every other forum analyzed contributes more threads than those three combined.
Perhaps it’ll be better looking at posts? Great Debates has generated 13.02% of posts in our sample and Elections 2.15%. Combine those and we get 15.17%. Much better. Much higher engagement.
But still not up to snuff of the other fora. All the other fora at a minimum constitute 16.66% of posts. The only way the discussion fora compete is to combine them all. GD, Elections and the Pit then constitute 28.4% of total posts. I’d again bet they have a lot of overlap in posters.
Which brings us to my next point…
Where GD and Elections really shine is in the depth of posts. In terms of how many posts each thread receives, the two of them really stand out. Great Debates shows an average of 58.16 posts-per-thread while Elections is our overall winner at 74.81 post-per-thread. All that looks helpful.
But not so much. One of my solid takeaways from my discussions with TPTB is that engagement - in terms of ad dollars - in a matter of diminishing returns. An individual’s third or forth time visiting a thread generates one-tenth or less in ad revenue than their first impression. By their fifth or sixth impression in a thread they generate no revenue. So long, ongoing yellfests – or discussions, should you prefer the term - stop generating new revenue fairly quickly over time.
The debates forums are not the focus of the userbase of the SDMB. People do not, on average, come here for the debate. They come here for the community. They come to ask questions and get answers. They come to discuss Star Wars, share everyday opinions and talk about how their day went. They come for the friendships and not to yell at each other.
There could be a decent argument to be made that Great Debates and Elections is where the userbase as a whole decided to segregate those posters who WANT to yell at each other so they don’t make it unpleasant in GQ, Cafe Society, IMHO and MPSIMS. I seem to recall that we split off Elections from Great Debates for the reason that threads about American elections were crowding out other debate and irritating posters in GD.
That doesn’t mean that those fora are useless. That’s not what I’m implying at all. What I want to communicate here is that, from available data, the belief that the SDMB is primarily about debate and discussion - at least as represented by GD and Elections - is a fallacy. It’s a pretension held among those posters who post there frequently…a sort of self-elevating belief structure that’s not congruous with the facts available. Putting that belief to bed should be helpful for all of us.
If we wanted to maximize revenue - as moderators - we’d do everything we could to encourage more cat pictures and news-of-the-day threads. We could limit all threads to no more than 100 posts or limit posters to no more than 5 posts per thread or something wonky like that. But limiting specific, ill-liked posters? Banning or otherwise sanctioning them? There’s very little evidence that’s going to move the needle at all.
I had no idea you held such contempt for the folks in the fora you’ve volunteered to moderate. Why do you want to moderate something you despise?
I’m using the same sort of financial analysis you would use to kick a poor person off government health care and deciding I am no longer willing to subsidize this persons existence.
That’s it! Just like you complaining about higher taxes for the ACA, I am saying I’m no longer interested in subsidizing you.
Don’t like a cost-benefit analysis being run on your worth to this society? I’m surprised, as I can’t imagine anything more “conservative” than running financials on the worth of individuals to a larger group.
Thanks, and if you find it, I would like to read it. Because the HDization of the SDMB is something I’ve seen on other MB’s as they decline - the louder voices dominate more, the forum focuses on them, and in time you end up with a small cadre of people who only stay there just to bicker at one another.
3000 unique visitors! Over 60 days! 50 unique visitors a day! This place can’t survive that nor the trend.
"Negative Influencers"costs this place $64/$128 per lost subscriber. The Active Users metric is in an, apparently, unstoppable decline.
But you argue that HD posting here is conducive to the sites financial viability. I’m interested in seeing the financial analysis you used to derive this conclusion.
Wait, you mean they can migrate to social media or reddit instead? Who knew?!
I agree that SDMB is experiencing a decline, but the message board as a platform is becoming obsolete, so I wouldn’t blame it on HD et al.
Love him, hate him or have no idea who he is, you can’t really say that Ditka has been anything but a relative positive re the vitality and ultimate lifespan of this board, however small that positive may be.
I mean, look at this thread; people are responding to him, negatively or otherwise.
And if the argument that this thread is a diversion and not an actual contribution to the website, well maybe JT has responded to/solved his own question/dilemma: just ignore him.
But we all know, the people who complain about HD can’t ignore him. In complaining about him, they only give him a bigger stage.
Ahhh. Questions of process! I like!
Simple - the warning system we have today would likely work, given some modifications. Changes:
But really? The best thing this place could do is grow to the point where HD is drowned out. But, given that it likely won’t, my point here is that the SDMB is no longer at a place where we can just afford people who take joy in driving people off, or even those who spend their time denigrating the place.
I think people can say that he isn’t because they do all the time.
The argument is that the CPM revenues of this generated activity has not been proven to exceed the NPV of paying members. I am waiting for #'s to disprove this hypothesis, and I am always willing to listen to math-based arguments which disprove my case.
I don’t do either of those things.
Well if I were the admin I’d suspend posters over extortion. See, you don’t understand the terrible precedent that capitulation sets. The starving artist ban that happened, in part due to the same bullshit argument, only resulted in a continuation of this so-called very unique approach to administrative/moderation manipulation.
never mind
By what metric would those who say he has been a net negative to this board use to make such a statement? In your opinion, that is.
The metric is glaringly apparent, a term I use ironically.
There seems to me to be no question that the number of posters who are women and/or people of color has declined in recent years. Forums like Elections and GD are almost universally white men.* Even GQ and CS appear to have only rare appearances by anyone who is not a white male. Others are conspicuous by their absence.
I greatly appreciate the opinions of those who aren’t white males in discussions of politics and law and society and culture. They make me think differently. They are valuable additions to the Board.
The healthiest and most interesting places on the internet are those where diverse opinions thrive. If the Dope becomes a bastion of white male thinking it will gradually shrink into nothingness, because even white men will leave, as some notable posters already have.
Since it needs to be said out loud, trolls of any color, bodily appendages, or political persuasion should be promptly kicked out. But not all intolerance is trolling.
*I don’t know the color or gender of every single poster, but comments tend over time to reveal the person behind the words. Those comments are what I’m no longer seeing. I want diversity of comments, not for posters to tick themselves off on boxes or establish quotas. Again, this shouldn’t need to be said, but I know someone will bring it up if I don’t.
And just how did you pull that from a few lines of a rather large and detailed post? I don’t get that JC despises or holds anything in contempt; just that he’s trying to enlighten us. Fght ignorance so to speak. Isn’t that sort of Job1 just a little ahead of maintaining order? 
On a related note (maybe I missed a memo,) what happened to adaher? Did he get banned, or just stop posting?
[Full text in post #161]
Thanks. For those of us who are numbers-minded, there may be a good opportunity in a new thread to discuss ways to make individual forums more effective/profitable. Personally, my foremost reason for being here is the trivia. My favourite two forums are Comments on Cecil’s Columns/Staff Reports and General Questions. I just don’t comment in those forums very often. Maybe I should make an effort to ask more General Questions.
I appreciate your analysis and agree with your conclusion. Trying not to go too far down a tangent, I’ve also looked at the numbers, and have a slightly different perspective. I, of course, have no knowledge of the profitability of any individual forum. I also believe the numbers on the front page contain Life-To-Date data, which means they’ll be historically skewed. Nevertheless, going with the available numbers, it appears that the SDMB has six major product lines, three minor product lines, and three support product lines. Great Debates is the least popular of the major product lines, but still over four times more popular than The Game Room.
Forum Posts %
CS 3,846,431 17.79%
MPISM 3,620,440 16.74%
IMHO 3,437,003 15.89%
GQ 3,306,694 15.29%
TBBQP 2,625,882 12.14%
GD 2,583,167 11.95%
TGR 834,534 3.86%
TG 528,041 2.44%
Elections 425,671 1.97%
ATMB 271,587 1.26%
COCC/SR 141,283 0.65%
Marketplace 3,406 0.02%
Total 21,624,139
Given the limited aspects of the data being analysed, and the cursoriness of the analysis, my evaluations are only fit for discussion, and do not represent serious business analysis. Nevertheless, it’s apparent that a business strength of the SDMB is the diversity of its top forums. Cafe Society is 50% more popular than Great Debates, but no single forum is a central focus of the SDMB participants. Therefore, the individual strengths of each of the top six forums should be highlighted, and efforts should be made so that they are distinct from each other. Focusing on Great Debates, it’s distinctive aspect is that, by its very name, it encourages people to take sides. I’d also say that there needs to be distinctiveness between the selling points of Great Debates and In My Humble Opinion. Robustness versus collegiality could provide that distinction.
So, tying this back to the OP, there’s the issue that the dispute is in Elections, a minor forum, as viewed by front-page numbers. But you note that this is a newer forum and can be paired for analysis with Great Debates. Do I believe that there’s a business case for banning an unpopular poster who has controversial views that he expresses in Great Debates or Elections? No. If someone’s on the attack in MPSISM, then by all means the moderators should rein that person in. Being controversial and oppositional in Great Debates, or Elections as a separate subsidiary? If the SDMB is taking a business perspective towards that practice, they should support it. I’m not saying that financial implications should influence the moderators. However, having put some thought into it and having done some analysis based on the existing numbers, I disagree with the premise that there’s a financial basis for excluding a poster based on having a disagreeable viewpoints in forums where disagreement is part of their distinctive marketability.