When someone is banned, does SDMB reduce the member count?
Doubtful. I think the only way to get someone removed from the member count is to remove that member’s name. That pretty much only happens during a significant board reset.
Out of curiosity, SwingWing, why are you so obsessed with getting an accurate nose-count of posting Dopers? I believe you’ve posted in almost all of the recent threads which demand a user count. I can’t think of a particularly good use for this information myself. The board doesn’t use pop-up advertising so you wouldn’t be looking at the ad demographics. What’s the deal?
The only thing I can figure is that you come from a board that does give access to such user data and you wish to make a manshaft comparison between this board and another. I hope I’m mistaken and there’s a better reason. 
Sorry, I’m not that deep. The term “Teeming Millions” and this inconsequential Cecil character really bug me. Just want the truth, “Fighting Ignorance.” 450 Dopers are just as inconsequential as this Cecil is to serious research and knowledge concerns.
(I must admit I find your bonnet-bee over Cecil a little bizarre.)
The ‘Teeming Millions’ aren’t just the posters or readers of the SDMB. It’s also the many, many more people who have access to the Straight Dope newspaper column in newspapers (whish is where it has appeared for over thirty years), or who read it online at straightdope.com, or by direct intra-cranial broadcast from Straight Dope Headquaters on the Valles Marineris.
The number on the front page (currently 44,864) refers to the total number of unique usernames that have been signed up (not including accounts lost during board glitches, or the Winter of Our Missed Content). Included in that number are banned members and members who registered and later stopped visiting the board. In some cases, a single banned member may have signed up under several different usernames, and been banned under them all; those names would all be counted towards that number.
However, I strongly doubt that banned members make up anything like a significant minority of that number. The bulk are:
- Members who actively post
- Members who rarely post, but read regularly (‘lurk’)
- Members who return occasionally
- Members who have moved on to something else, and don’t read or post anymore.
Not included in that count are a number of people who read the board with frequency ranging from once in a blue moon to every day, but who haven’t registered to post. Many members have stories of being in that status for a long time before registering, and, in fact, this practice is recommended by both the staff and many members. I suspect the number of such ‘unregistered lurkers’ is large.
There you go. The Straight Dope on the Straight Dope. You want histograms? I don’t have 'em.
(As for ‘inconsequential’, realise that even if it teaches one person something, it’s fought ignorance. And we’ve definitely done that. We don’t claim to change the world.)
Deleting a Member entirely is easy and takes effect immediately on the Member count. Banning a Member is just as easy and does not change the Member count.
I think Una Persson is the only person who has contributed an answer every other post want to take a shot at the OP. God dotta love this place.
So this means that others aren’t capable of thought processes that you find inconceivable?
Thank you. I’ll be polite, since I don’t want to become another banned member yet shown as a member …
First, I log out after each SDMB session. While reading posts next time on SDMB and before logging in, would I be counted as an unregistered luker? Second, it seems to me, like black matter, the concept of a large number of unregistered lukers, has to be proven to exist by some effect in space and time. I don’t see how “unregistered lurkers” could be shown to have any affect on the SDMB. Thus, they don’t exist.
So where does the argument that there are ~44,000 members plus 20,000 “whatevers” come from. What’s the proof or is this just SDMB hype?
I hope I understand your question. If you are not logged in, the Board records your session as a “Guest”. These sessions are tracked and available for view by the Staff (or the Members, if that option is turned on). Typically on message boards of this type, there are a very large number of Guests relative to logged in Members. Now it is assumed that many of these Guests are Members that just aren’t cookied and aren’t logged in, but there is no way to tell until they set their cookie or log in.
These unregistered Guests do matter to the Board. They matter in that they are an “audience” of sorts, but technically speaking they matter because reading takes bandwidth and server power. People historically keep repeating this mantra of “posting drains the resouces” but that’s not true - there are far, far more reads than posts. In fact, the ratio can be greater than 1000:1 in terms of read posts per posted post. And that’s not hard to imagine - If you read 20 threads of 50 posts then post once, there’s your 1000:1 ratio. True, that database insert required for a “Post” takes more CPU power than a “Read”, but it’s overweighed by the huge ratio.
Thank you. If I understand your answer, SDMB does not know if the person lurking is a reistered member, not logged in, or an “unregistered lurker.” So where did the 20,000 “whatevers” statistic come from?
I don’t know either. We are at the event horizon of my knowledge, not being an Admin on this site.
Personal potshots in ATMB? Tsk tsk. If you’re looking to test the total-users-decrement-when-someone-is-banned theory, I’ll be sure to post the results when you’re gone.
No, what I said was that I couldn’t think of a use for the information that would justify such an ardent and persistent pursuit. I like to think in practical terms and therefore I believe numbers are there to be crunched. I was polite, and I gave him credit for having a good use for the data. As it turns out, he had no use for the data; he was merely curious and wanted the information for its own sake. I thought of this possibility but I didn’t see any subsequent use for it, which is why I asked.
Any other questions?
I’ll take this yes I was wrong let’s see if someone does get banned with less than 48 hours before they call for subscriptions and see how that will affect things given all this discussion.
This seems to indicate that SW requires a reason which is acceptable to you before he can ask a question. This is neither helpful or informative. Your entire post seemed arguementative and limiting as to SW’s right to ask question. And only if the question has a valid reason which you agree with. If SW was gathering the information to ridicule this board so be it, it is his right to in the light of recent events. Once he has made such a comparison then string him up and tell him he’s wrong, not before hand, innocent until proven guilty.
And it seems that I cannot ask questions that you do not approve of. Pick a side and stay on it. I admitted my curiosity, noted his passion for the subject, told him my hare-brained speculation, and gave him due credit for having a good reason for wanting to know. I finished with a smiley-wink which you failed to include in my quote, putting my comment in the wrong context.
You, on the other hand, disallow my question because you claim I’m disallowing his question. You can’t have it both ways. If he’s allowed to be merely curious then so am I. If you disagree, consult a mod and ask them to make special exceptions for you.
If SwingWing is offended by my question he may tell me so himself.
No problem, so long as I don’t get banned and become a SDMB Member statistic.
Irony is funny.
The proof of this is on the main menu.
The differerence between the members shown (currently 44,891) and the number of the newest member (beta_k #45038). Thus 147 users have been deleted. (For the stat sticklers: I believe there was discussion of a few more deleted that were among the users lost in the Winter of Our Lost Content, which see.)