Active members

[TrevorW]

Just a question the front page shows 10407 members however the members list shows 385 pages with 30 members per page which equates to 11550 members or thereabouts

However on a random check of the members listing total members per page with 2 or less postings account for around 20 members per page

Example:
Date Postings
25-06-2007 0 ambroseliao (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/member.php?u=3742) Registered User
01-10-2007 1 amcanes (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/member.php?u=5957) Registered User
25-11-2008 0 amcbelladonna (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/member.php?u=12555) Registered User
05-01-2012 0 AmerniGK73 (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/member.php?u=11025) Registered User
05-05-2011 0 amhatcher (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/member.php?u=7671) Registered User
16-09-2009 0 amillego (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/member.php?u=10042) Registered User
14-12-2010 0 amine (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/member.php?u=3214) Registered User
25-08-2007 0 amishra (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/member.php?u=10329) Registered User
17-01-2011 0 Amity (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/member.php?u=10454) Registered User

Most of the above have no postings and registered years ago

I would consider it more prudent that the total only reflects the total membership of active members say those with 1 or more posts monthly in a 6-12 month period and those members who have not posted regularly drop off.

Based on my rough calculations the active member numbers are more likely to be around the 2000 mark :question:

[iceman]

So members that don't post don't deserve to be members?

I'm sorry that's not the way it works here. I know of many members who have been members for years and don't have any posts, or haven't posted in a long time.

People register for different reasons. Some like to post and ask questions or answer questions, others sit in the background and read, others receive the e-newsletters and probably don't read the forums much at all.

An online community is no different than any other group of people that you'd put together in a room. Some will want to be the centre of attention and do lots of talking, like-minded folk would group together, and you'd have those that sit in the back of the room just watching and listening. Should they be kicked out? I think not.

While we celebrate the milestones the numbers don't mean that much on its own - it's just a way to mark the continued growth of IceInSpace.

[TrevorW]

The problem is that it's not a true reflection of the the member base and is in someways misleading

I doubt someone who registered in 2007 and made 1 post would return or even warrants being called a member and any DB manager would say you are cluttering up your database. There is no perceivable reason to keep them recorded other than to boost the membership figures.

A lot of sites allow non registered members to make a post or remark as a guest and in fact you don't have to register to view other posts.

Celebrating a milestone IMO would be 10000 active members.

We will beg to differ on this one

[gel]

joined in 2006 with 72 posts and i still love this site,i view it nearly every day,please dont put caviets on them,regards a very loyal member.

[jjjnettie]

If someone takes the time to register, that makes them a member in my eyes. It shows they've taken enough interest in the site to want to "own" it.
Young Josh (Nortilus) who joined before I did, lurked for 5 years before becoming an active member. During that time he spent his time following threads and learning.
You can't deem non active members as non members.

[TrevorW]

The stats are wrong plain and simple coming up with exceptions is not the rule

I'm talking of over 70% of the total listed membership having 2 posts or less

Cheers

[erick]

Trevor, and the problem is......?

[iceman]

But so what, Trevor?

What are you comparing it to?

Other astro sites? Whatever measure you use to compare, it makes no difference.

The 'total membership number' is exactly that. Just like CloudyNights have probably 50000+ members (the site is down now so I can't check), BAUT forum has 111,000 members, and Facebook have 7 gazillion members.

It's just a total membership count. None of them report 'active members' by whatever measure YOU choose.

[gts055]

hmmm, I joined 1-6-2005 and have made a grand total of 129 posts. I read here nearly every day. I am just a quiet person who enjoys this site. I guess there r hundreds and hundreds of people here who like to browse posts and look at the for sale columns, they r active in the background like me :)

[Forgey]

Im am member on the cloudynights forum and although ive never posted on there I visit it regularly for information.

[TrevorW]

I'm a stickler for accuracy, meaningful figures and good database management.

Just because other sites may do it does not make it right.

I'm not referring to people who have posted several times or more but you all obviously have missed my point

:hi:

[TrevorW]

You are often not required to register to view a forum post.:thumbsup:

[erick]

I am as well, but don't see the need for it on this forum. :)

[Ausrock]

You encounter this on virtually any internet forum, people who for what ever reason, register a membership, then either don't "post" or "post" very little, thing is THEY ARE STILL FORUM MEMBERS..................then there are those who choose to nit-pick when the "forum norm" doesn't fit into their little picture of the world :shrug:

[lacad01]

Hi Trevor, just drawing a parallel - if I'm a member of a society or club or whatever however don't attend meetings or vote or "actively" participate except to enjoy the privileges of membership (in whatever form that may take), does that mean I shouldn't be counted on the membership roll or be accounted as a statistic of that club's membership? I'm struggling to understand what the issue is to be honest :)

[iceman]

Threads like this is where we usually get haters like Bert Candusio and other popping up.. Always good to bring those NON MEMBERS out of the woodwork, right?

Good database management? Please.. This forum is so big a few thousands records in a users table makes 0 difference.

[2stroke]

lol this thered an the op are a joke, talk about a forum troll.

Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#mw-head), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#p-search)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Padlock-silver.svg/20px-Padlock-silver.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi)
"Do not feed the trolls" and "DNFTT" redirect here. For the Wikipedia essay, see Wikipedia:Deny recognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deny_recognition).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Trollface.svg/200px-Trollface.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trollface.svg)http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.19/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trollface.svg)
The "trollface", first appearing in 2008, is often used to indicate trolling in contemporary internet culture.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-0) Modern usage of the word itself dates from 1980s.


In Internet slang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang), a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-1) extraneous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective), or off-topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic) messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion) response[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-PCMAG_def-2) or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-IUKB_def-3) The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subjective#English), with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment) outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#cite_note-Trolling:TheTodayShowExplorestheDar kSideoftheInternet-5)


Please GET HELP or medication, your fellow iis acitve member 2stroke :)

[Octane]

I was going to say, that database management is the least of this site's worries.

The traffic on here (not network) wouldn't even raise a blip on CPU usage reports.

The thrust of your message is that the numbers are misleading. Even if they were, who would it effect? This is not a commercial enterprise that needs to answer to a board or shareholders.

Get out and capture some photons, Trevor. :)

H

[Barrykgerdes]

This site will have the same % of active members as any others and there are not many specialist enthusiast boards that go anywhere near the numbers on this site and grow at the same rate.

Barry

[Bassnut]

I'm with Trevor all the way on this one, those stats are friggen shocking, makes me sick just thinking about it. What does the goverment do about it?. NOTHIN. They buy all those Tasers, use em already, I'm sure they work out of Mikes karate-chop range.

[Octane]

lol, onya, Fred! :D

H

[iceman]

:fight: LOL Fred!

[jjjnettie]

You're a constant source of amusement Fred. :)

[Poita]

I loves my numbers too, but was also a lurker here for a while before posting, and have joined other sites that I visit regularly yet never post.

Trevor, you could go manually through the list and extract the numbers for everyone who has posted in the last 18 months if you wanted to get the number of relatively active posters.
But what does it tell us? Say there were 400 people in that boat, 380 of them might have stopped posting a week ago and may never be back, 100 of the non posters may start posting next month.
It is a fluid medium.

I know when sites I have managed get really large, we send out an email to all of them, getting them to verify their membership, we do it once a quarter over the course of a year and then remove anyone who hasn't responded (and send them an email letting them know of that as well), but that was only when numbers and spammers had gotten out of hand.
This is a pretty small community, can't see much of a reason to plumb the numbers other than curiosity sake, and you could do that (slowly) yourself if the whim takes you.
I'd rather be outside personally, but I can understand where you are coming from.

PS> Fred, I personally also wouldn't count on a taser bringing Mike down... I'll stand behind you while you try it out.

[alistairsam]

Trevor,
As mentioned, members may not post for a variety of reasons, not many would take it kindly if their login doesn't work after a period, that'd turn people away.
Signing up gives you a sense of belonging to the community.
In terms of db, 10k records are nothing, there's no performance improvement to be gained by purging a user table.
A member can't be deemed "active" just because they post. There could be hundreds of members who're reading through and learning, they're as active as others.
As H mentioned, time's better spent catching photons.

Al

[GeoffW1]

Eh? What?:rofl:

[troypiggo]

Anyone else find it ironic that this thread has brought long-time non-posters out of the woodwork to post? :)

[TrevorW]

Guys all I can say is do the background research, I did, and if you don't like MPOV well tough because I'm right and your wrong :P

[ballaratdragons]

All 2 of them. :lol: Gel and gts055.

A Stampede it doesn't make :lol:

[brian nordstrom]

:) Also , as has been raised here , is that some people are quiet by nature and dont like to make to much af a splash , no problems there .
...
On that I have received quite a few PM's form members asking questions as they dont want there ( what they see as silly) questions or opinions splashed all over for everyone to see ,, :shrug: . Nothing wrong with that , its a free world .
I like the people here , there are some REALLY GREAT!!! ones here I am proud to call friends , so I contribute and when not here on IIS or working I am out catching photons ....:thumbsup: .
What a great life..:hi:. AHHH...
Brian.

[supernova1965]

I don't think your figures are wrong Trevor I just don't see it as a problem to worry over.:thumbsup:

[RobF]

C'mon Trevor, we're really just debating the semantics of what "active member" means. I guess you're arguing active should mean "been here recently and posting", whereas the current definition in the minds of the people that wrote the forum software is "people that created an active account".

Other than that the definition isn't going to matter that much is it? (unless Mike starts giving away free G11s to "active members" - hmmm, there's an idea.....) :D

[astroron]

You must have too much time on your hands;)
Cheers:thumbsup:

[Ausrock]

Trevor,

I'm going to quote a thread title of your's (thankfully a totally different subject matter but appropriate)....................."Stand back Take Stock Life's to Short".

You feel that you are right on this "active member" issue and maybe you are, BUT only for yourself. Everyone will have an opinion and each one will be valid for the individual but not necessarily for the community as a whole. You have obviously been a valuable member here so maybe it's an appropriate time to think about things and remember that thread title ;).

[asimov]

Not this subject again LMAO!

'No comment' :lol:

[AstroFlyer]

Few forums I've subscribed to raised that issue.
Couple of them actually decided to remove members that are non-active (not posting regularly).
Guess what? These forums don't exist anymore.
Personally, I'm here few times a day, but I do not post as often as others.
I'm am an IceInSpace addict, but I don't deal as much as others...:P
Does it make me an active or non active member?

[luvmybourbon]

Am i a "Claytons" member then? here but not really here?

[Sarge]

There is no right or wrong - only different points of view.:einstein:

Me thinks someone it trolling.

Clear skies

Rod
:D:D

[jjjnettie]

Gawd help me if the spammers get culled. LOL

[FlashDrive]

Yes .. this place is a hive of information and full of very helpful people. :thumbsup:


Flash :D

[ballaratdragons]

188 pages of members that have posted something.

The zero's don't appear until page 181
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/memberlist.php?&pp=30&order=desc&sort=posts&page=181

Pages 181 to 347 (including todays newest member 13,098 'Zane_C) are all zero posters.



SO WHAT! :rofl:

[Deeno]

Oh, the non posters are alright, leave 'em alone.
Probably the shy retiring sort that utilize the search function and wander through the links and resources to find the answers they're after. Instead of asking the same questions we see over and over........

Maybe its the over active members that should be put under the microscope. Using up valuable resources and generally causing trouble!

There's one punter with nearly 29 000 posts at over 10 posts a day, probably thinks he owns the site :poke:

[ballaratdragons]

Yeahh! Sack us all :rofl:

have a look at all the Chatter-box's in order of Chatter-boxing :P http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/memberlist.php?order=DESC&sort=posts&pp=30

[Paul Haese]

I can see what Trevor is driving at but I just don't care about this issue. We culled on SCP aka Oortcloud but it made not difference to numbers. Mind you the site does not cater to everyone.;)

Besides I am here twice. That make the world has two of me Mwaaahhhaah.:eyepop:

Don't worry about it Trev, it ain't worth getting stressed about. I am catchin Photons right now and reading this thread for assument at 140 in the morning. :)

[luigi]

I admin a spanish spoken forum and I've worked with online commnities for a few years, and I'm also a member here.

My thoughts:

What Trevor suggests is a metric of active users. Such a metric is usually a good indicator of the health of an online community. Let's say if a community only has 3 or 4 members that post it is more a blog than a community with all the advantages and disadvantages of that.

Furthermore the number of active members in a community not always rises as the user base grows.

Of course I'm with Mike in the concept of members being registered members wether they post or not is irrelevant.

But Trevor's metric does have a value, it's something that online communities have to watch, if your "active" user base shrinks or doesn't grow in quite a time then something is probably happening that deserves some attention.

There's something in old online communities that I call the "club effect", when a community has several years there's a group of very active members usually around 10-50 that create most of the posts and that comment on each other's posts. These set of members usually don't post or interact with new members joining the community, that leads to new members getting very few comments or answers and eventually they fade.

There are several things that an online community can do about the club effect in case that's something that matters.

[iceman]

The spammers aren't included in the registration count - at least, the ones that have been banned.
No doubt there's some spammers/bots that have gotten through over the years but haven't posted anything (they forgot? LOL). But they'd be a minor amount.

The ones that are caught and banned (most of which are banned before they even make a post on the forum) aren't included in the count. That's why there's a difference of a few thousand between the 'user id' of the latest users (eg: ~13000) and the total users (~10400).



I don't disagree with the concept or the metric, and as the forum administrator it's my job to look at and monitor these things, and I do.

What I disagree with, is Trevor's intentions. He's not concerned with the health of the community (in a positive way). He's implying (actually more than implying) that the numbers are misleading.




What he's saying, but not coming right out and saying, is that it's misleading to advertisers. It's not the first time someone has tried to imply that - that I'm using 'misleading' total membership numbers to get advertisers on IceInSpace.

Usually it's brought up by jaded members who are administrators/moderators of other astronomy forums and are simply trolling to stir up trouble (and those jaded members are in most cases now banned and/or deleted).

Isn't that right Trevor?

Here's a few things about that:
- It's insulting to me, my integrity and honesty
- It's insulting the intelligence of the advertisers. They don't need you to watch out for them.
- It's none of your bloody business



Absolutely - it's always a concern and every online community has it, just in different degrees. It starts impacting the community if, like you say, new members join and noone responds to them or interacts with them.

Fortunately that doesn't happen here at a bad level yet - I'm really proud of how newcomers are treated and accepted and there's an equally core group of people who do respond to them and make them feel welcome.

But it's certainly something that needs to be watched - most times it manifests itself in newcomers being AFRAID to post because they feel like they're stepping into a room where everyone is already and always talking.


Trevor, I'm not sure why you raised this a couple of times:
(when talking about CloudyNights)

I'm not sure what your point is - you don't need to register to read IceInSpace either. You only need to register to post.



Extremely valid point. As others have also said in this thread, don't lose any sleep over it Trevor. It's not worth YOU worrying about.

There are bigger things to concern yourself over.

[luigi]

In terms of metrics to sponsoring organizations every forum in the world counts registrations so I don't think why IIS should behave in a different way.

About the "club effect" I like that IIS knows about it and does things about it, that's a great thing from the admins and will keep the community healthy for a long time.

About intentions I have no idea, I was more on the "theory" behind different metrics.

[Allan_L]

Apologies to everyone else who hopes this Thread will die, but ...

I avoided reading this thread for as long as I could ...
but the growing replies got the better of me.

Is it totally lost on everyone that at any given point, there are always at least 4 times as many "guests" as members on line. (quite often it is more).

I know of many active regular readers who do not "log on" because they only want to read.
Reading is an activity, right?
And they are members, too.

Do you have to post to be regarded as active?

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind...

As my signature suggests, there is no definite absolutes, because we are all flavoured with our own points of view.

And I agree with Mike that the implicit nature of the comment is immaterial at best and insulting at worst. But that is just IMHO.

[FlashDrive]

A lot of ' truth ' in that statement ... a valid comment to make.

Flash :hi:

[troypiggo]

Here's an example. I've got a scope for sale at the moment. Got a PM from a member last night with zero post count asking me about it. He's active but zero posts.

[kinetic]

My young son is a member but he hasn't made a post for 6 mths.
Probably has 6 posts in total.
He loves the idea of being part of an online astronomy community and
is very hesitant to post for fear of looking like a dill.
But he reads and observes and learns a lot in the forums.
He wants to participate in the monthly terrestrial competition too
but feels he would be also judged on his work.

I bet a lot of members have kids who also have membership.
There should be encouragement not the opposite for the silent
membership.

FWIW,

Steve (proud dad).

[erick]

Brian and, later Troy, make a good point. What about all the PMs flying about. I've certainly had a good number of PMs over the years asking questions from people who were not regular posters.

[TrevorW]

"What he's saying, but not coming right out and saying, is that it's misleading to advertisers. It's not the first time someone has tried to imply that - that I'm using 'misleading' total membership numbers to get advertisers on IceInSpace.

Usually it's brought up by jaded members who are administrators/moderators of other astronomy forums and are simply trolling to stir up trouble (and those jaded members are in most cases now banned and/or deleted).

Isn't that right Trevor?

Here's a few things about that:
- It's insulting to me, my integrity and honesty
- It's insulting the intelligence of the advertisers. They don't need you to watch out for them.
- It's none of your bloody business"


Mike

Misleading means that it is not a true reflection of the active membership base, surely there is a way to count member activity and cull those that do not contribute.

Realistically how many of you members may now not even be with us, you'd have no idea, do we still call them members.

Also as has been the case before with me and others you attack me in an open forum and get insulting when someone raises a valid point that goes against the grain when you could have PM'd me and kept it personal if you thought I was attacking you directly.

Who's being honest, I have no concerns about my integrity and I'm surprised you would take this as a personal affront

As to banning me because somewhat has raised an issue the ire's you just remember the saying "he who complains the loudest"

I was not implying anything about the numbers being misleading to advertisers it didn't even enter my mind but obviously it did yours, my impetus for this post came about because I was scrolling the membership list trying to jog my memory for a members name that I'd seen some time ago and was surprised by the number of registered members who had no postings but had been registered for several years.

If you want to ban me go right ahead there are plenty of other sites out there.:hi:

[GeoffW1]

Awwww, c'mon

You guys are getting too excited over nothing much.

Cheers

[GeoffW1]

Hi,

I think this is a most excellent point. However as a newbie here I remember being well looked after, and it encouraged me to try to contribute in return.

Cheers

[stardust steve]

I joined IIS in Sept 2010. For the next 15 months i never posted once. It was not until late 2011 when my interest stepped up a gear, that i felt i would like to contribute something (my image of Lovejoy). Now i feel i would not be at the level i am now all be it a learner in my hobby without the help of the members. I rarely visit the other forum sites as i feel this site has everything i need.
I would have been extremely disappointed if i had discovered i had been booted for not posting for 15 months.

[Ausrock]

Trevor,

You've obviously missed the point made by others...........there have been and always will be members who for whatever reason choose not to be rabid posters, people who sit back and read the threads and learn or whatever. If you see something "wrong" with passive members and believe they should be culled which is what you're advocating, then maybe it is you who has a problem :shrug:

[Ric]

The way I see it some join and like to contribute while others like to join and just read, they probably just like the sense of belonging to a community.

It's all a bit of a storm in a teacup.

[ThunderChild]

I formally joined over 6 years ago - despite the fact that I have only a hundred posts or so. Have gone entire years between posts - which would have excluded me from the "active" list many times.

A few quick points:

(1) : "DB Clutter"
I am a programmer and spend my life up to my elbows in databases and code. Your statement about cluttering up the DB is not valid here. I would be confident that the numbers we're talking about are chicken feed.
Unfortunately, this statement also implies that you're actively deleting the logins/profiles of non active members (otherwise how else would the 'clutter' go away).
As stated, I have gone long stretches without posting - and I'd be really peeved off if my account had been killed like that.

(2) : "True Reflection of the user base"
If we go this way, then we must require some abitrary metric for defining who's active. Where the line is drawn is so grey, that it doesn't help a great deal. At least "Total members" has no ambiguity - it is a completely understandable metric.

$0.05

[Keltik]

Ignore the numbers. They are of little importance.

[acropolite]

I'm closing this thread now, as usual people are getting offensive and offended. As a moderator I won't make any judgement on the thread originators intent, I'll leave that to the membership.