Active members

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

188 pages of members that have posted something.

The zero's don't appear until page 181
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/m...posts&page=181

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



SO WHAT!

[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

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by Deeno

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

Yeahh! Sack us all

have a look at all the Chatter-box's in order of Chatter-boxing http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/m...rt=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.

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 (Mike)]

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

Gawd help me if the spammers get culled. LOL

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).

Originally Posted by luigi

What Trevor suggests is a metric of active users. Such a metric is usually a good indicator of the health of an online community. <snip>
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Trevor

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

Originally Posted by Trevor

There is no perceivable reason to keep them recorded other than to boost the membership figures.

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

Originally Posted by luigi

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.

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)

Originally Posted by Trevor

... and in fact you don't have to register to view other posts.

Originally Posted by Trevor

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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".
<snip>
You have obviously been a valuable member here so maybe it's an appropriate time to think about things and remember that thread title .

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 (Allan)]

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 (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by luigi

My thoughts:
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.
.

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

Flash

[troypiggo (Troy)]

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 (Steve)]

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 (Eric)]

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.

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

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

Awwww, c'mon

You guys are getting too excited over nothing much.

Cheers

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by luigi

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.

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 (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 (Chris)]

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

Originally Posted by TrevorW

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.

[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 (Chris)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Trevor)]

Ignore the numbers. They are of little importance.