Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Commentary on the head count

Tryphena Absent

22:45 / 20.10.03

I know it's weird of me but I'm finding the head count thread really interesting to the point where I think something should be done with the information. I mean there are some lurkers (hi!!) who've just popped there heads up out of the blue and some people who rarely post at the moment. It also really marks out the spoil sports who post a lot but don't engage in frivolous activity with no discernable point but to say 'I'm here'- clearly they should be punished.

So erm, I haven't got an ounce of a clue what to do with it? Any ideas? There must be something equally as frivolous that we can apply this information too! Any hellos people want to say?

Hi Chantily Lace!

23:04 / 20.10.03

It seems to be an attempt to gauge how many people actually post here, or are inclined to post, at Barbelith.

Or that's how I view it.

EDIT: And hi to Shark Tower, who's my only irl pal on the site, but has never to my knowledge posted here.

23:11 / 20.10.03

I think anna's more looking for ideas of how we might be able to interest these lurker types into discussions. they're reading, so why aren't they posting, starting and responding to threads? what can we do to make the place more inviting?

or it could be I'm totally off the mark (once again), but that's what it made ME think.

23:33 / 20.10.03

For now?
Taxes!!

(death later?)

00:56 / 21.10.03

I think we should delete every username that doesn't answer to the census thread by Friday. That'll learn em.

01:35 / 21.10.03

Yeah! Stupid fuckers.

01:42 / 21.10.03

you just want to steal all the good names. cause yours sucks so hard.

07:11 / 21.10.03

I think it's interesting that there's a few lurkers out there. Obviously there's a goodly percentage of people who checkinto the site rarely, if ever. Can Tom conjure some stats up about this ie. how many different people post in a month, say? ('cause obviously he hasn't got enough to do). It'd be interesting to see what percentage of members are still active.

07:19 / 21.10.03

I imagine there's a few people who just log on to check the Magick forum as well. Ghettoisation and all that.

08:51 / 21.10.03

On some other boards I've been to, you can see who is currently online and even who is reading any thread at any one time. I actually find it a bit disconcerting but it's interesting to be able to see who's about.

09:05 / 21.10.03

Anna, this is a good idea - I have been so tempted to post in the thread but didn't want to ruin the count, and I'm glad you are finding it interesting, I am too.

I started the headcount thread because I was interested to see how many of the members registered actually regularly use Barbelith in some way. Also, it was partly in response to the Jury thread in Policy. I thought if we knew how many people were around in some form or another we could think about how well the jury idea might work. (Obviously I realise that some of the people who have posted in the thread don't normally post and therefore wouldn't qualify for jury duty.)

I don't know what we could do with the data we collate from the headcount thread, and I don't know how long it should be left for until we say 'OK, that's it - this is how many members are active' because there are lots of people who post regularly who aren't in the thread yet.

I am glad the thread has instigated a discussion on what we should do with the information though, especially as I have absolutely no idea!

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

10:19 / 21.10.03

Looks like I totally misjudged the amount of ass-candles I need to get for the next mass de-lurking...

Our Lady of The Two Towers

10:34 / 21.10.03

(Devils Advocate) Actually, there is the question of whether users with no (or few?) posts who have been signed up for a long time should be deleted, if they don't make themselves known...

10:45 / 21.10.03

Hmmm, strips to attractive and revealing neon pink lycra and begins to wrestle with the Devil's Advocate.

I'm just thinking of the number of boards I frequent where I post very little or, in a few cases, not at all.

Some are, admittedly, very dull professional ones that I have to check out but seldom feel inclined to chatter upon. Some are just boards that throw up something interesting now and then but not too often. Some I only visit when I decide to have a barbeholiday.

My enjoyment of those boards is genuine, though limited, and not at all sinister. Perhaps the great unwashed lurking majority here are just the type of folks who require no cut and thrust participation with us. I'm sure some will be teased out into the open when something tickles their fancy.

I'm also sure that many of them have signed up and moved on and will never be back. Odd, that, but I must accept that my name is Xoc and I'm a barbeholic.

22:07 / 23.10.03

I expected the head count to be higher.

00:07 / 24.10.03

I think it's quite possible that a good few people rarely use Conversation. There are definitely regularish posters in other forums who've yet to post there.

06:55 / 24.10.03

If people are going to get deleted for not posting on the head count the question is how long do you give them?
What if someone has gone travelling for two months and can't get to a computer?

08:06 / 24.10.03

It does appear that lots of regular posters haven't registered in the head count thread. Perhaps as Anna says they think they're above such trivia and a suitable punishment needs to be thought up.

No-one will be deleted as a result of not replying to that thread though Spid - I don't think people were really seriously suggesting that were they? Just discussing the number of longtime users who never post and asking if perhaps they should be deleted. And anyway, if you started deleting people just because they hadn't posted in that thread, you'd have to delete Haus!

09:05 / 24.10.03

Where is the old fruit anyway? Maybe we should delete him for a laugh and force him to post under the pseudonym 'crimes of fashion'...

SMatthewStolte- You expected the count to be higher? Than a hundred and fifty nine (so far)? Blimey. I was surprised so many replied, it's fairly quiet here at the mo.

Duncan stole my comment, lots of people rarely come to Conversation and might not read the thread even if they do.

14:51 / 24.10.03

159/2441 = ~7%

I thought more than 7% of the actual members would have responded, yes. It's only been a few years since the last purging and most active members have given up there extra fictionsuits.

if you started deleting people just because they hadn't posted in that thread, you'd have to delete Haus!

hmmmmmm

Our Lady of The Two Towers

14:17 / 25.10.03

Well, I was thinking that first we go for the Communists, because none of us are communists... Oops, sorry. Reminiscing there...

First to go should be people with, shall we say, less than 10 posts who were registered more than eight months ago? An advantage of this should be that we take out some of Knodge's yet to be activated fictionsuits. I'm not sure if there's any way to find out when someone last posted on Barbelith, but it might help us find now defunct suits.

Tom talked in the User Juries thread about thinking that people who've joined have a 'responsibility' to Barbelith. Should we then think they should have some responsibility to take part, even if it's just to make sure we know they exist on a census style thread?

(And should this thread perhaps be sent Policy and Help-wards?)

14:57 / 25.10.03

Hmm. I dont think its fair to do it by the census thread; some people may miss it, or nto go into convo much, etc. Is there any way of Tom mass-PMing everyone, and those who dont respond within a month or however long are deletified?

15:28 / 25.10.03

was that done before? It sounds familiar.... I think people should be given the right to lurk though....

Our Lady of The Two Towers

15:47 / 25.10.03

People have the right to lurk, if Tom let's down the drawbridge so people can see Barbelith without having to log in, but I question whether we should worry about lurkers with user names that haven't said anything (much/ever). It's a bit like the arguments the moderators have been having recently, why should we care about the feelings of people who aren't prepared to make their complaints known to either the Board or Tom, why should we care about wiping off the user names of people who aren't talking in the community?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

15:48 / 25.10.03

And on gingerbop's last point, Could perhaps one moderator per forum post a message and a link to the census thread to try and encourage those who don't check The Conversation to post there?

16:21 / 25.10.03

why should we care about wiping off the user names of people who aren't talking in the community?

Because there wouldn't be any new members in the community..? And it would be a pain in the ass to police, to come up with some formula like "you can only be a member if you post x times in x months". I lurked for quite a while before I started posting.

18:02 / 25.10.03

Tom also has the ability (if I remember correctly) to post a message on the front page of the site, up in the headers, without having to screw with the template HTML. Perhaps that's the place to advertise the census thread where it'll do most good?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

21:24 / 25.10.03

I wasn't proposing this as a rolling permanent thing, not for the moment anyway, but what are the real chances that someone's been lying low for more than eight months going, "tomorrow, tomorrow I'll post?", whereas we know that Knodge has a number os dormant suits for when he next has that itch he just can't scratch. And maybe, just maybe, if we did happen to delete someone who had been lurking for eight months, that would encourage them to rejoin and take part?

Tryphena Absent

20:29 / 27.10.03

It might be very handy to burn some of Knowledge's suits. That purple number with the flared trousers really should go. It's been sitting in the cupboard for ages and I don't think it really deserves a reverent trip to the charity shop. The problem would be the time limit of course, as a lurker I didn't come to the site for weeks on end but eventually I got properly in to it and with strict signing up rules it would be a bit cuntish to delete peoples handles here, there and everywhere.

gotham island fae

21:31 / 27.10.03

Put it in Policy. Please.

Thanks & Kixxes.

06:50 / 28.10.03

I think that all snoopy snoops that just look but don't touch should be placed on a rack, and stretched until they stop being shy, goddammit. and for any regular posters who can't be arsed with the census, the only solution is hanging. Swing boys, swing.