z_darius: No, it's not obvious at all and common sense is not really a mathematical concept.
The common sense is backed up by the hard math/stats information you obviously don't have access to.
z_darius: In July 2008 an average forum's member made 39.02 posts. As of today an average member made 34.02 posts.
It should be obvious since many topics have already been covered in the last years and most visitors can actually use the search function to find what they're looking for without starting a new discussion on the same topic. That only means the posted information, even old, is still valid and relevant.
Not to mention the fact that in the last couple of years no member was removed, even if he/she hasn't posted anything, like it was the case in 2008 or the previous years.
z_darius: So your 123 people in the stadium clearly does not mean there were more conversations than among 100 people in 2009.
You clearly try to debate about something without getting the full picture and the full information as I described above.
z_darius: Each poster is a visitor, but not every visitor is a poster so your argument fails right there.
How it fails? Did I write that each visitor actually posts something?
z_darius: Also, some members are no longer active so it takes a new poster with the same zeal for posting just to keep the status quo. That is posters that new members make at least the same number of posts as the former posters who are now inactive.
On PolishForums both members AND guest can make posts. Your argument about the number of members is irrelevant because you apparently forgot guests can also make posts.
z_darius: Hence, an increased number of visits does not automatically translate into an increased number of posts. In fact, the reverse seems to be true in the case of PF - it may have gained visitors but it lost the number of posts per visitor. If the rate of increase of visitors is not sufficient the increase may not be even enough to keep posts at the same level, let alone to increase it
See my note about the issues already covered by already existing topics.
z_darius: but you offer no proof and you are known to throw in some pretty exotic lines of argumentation
You don't expect me to post full stats so that I could prove you wrong, do you. You have the right not to believe me, but your arguments and reasoning are still weak.
z_darius: My favorite was the color change of some sort that allegedly caused a noticeable increase in visits within hours. Or that getting rid of avatars would increase the sophistication of the conversations on this forum :)
Obviously you are here, like a few other members, to try to prove how smart you are and how much better you would run the site. It's been going on for how many years now? Still, there's no evidence of your succeeding.
Bzibzioh: You still don't have a clue, do you? It's not about numbers but about quality. We can fill this forum with thousand posts a day with translations alone but who would want to join such a boring site?
I don't care about numbers, but you tend to bring numbers ('We lost many members etc.') too often to ignore them. If the site is boring, why you are still here? You 'threatened' to leave how many times now? In 2012 you'll post a similar message, again. It only means the site is not as bad as you hoped it to be.
Bzibzioh: Plus some posters are pure page fillers with nothing interesting to say.
Is it my or moderators fault? You should complain to the teachers and parents that some members they brought to the society are boring, stupid, or vulgar.
Bzibzioh: As I told you many times already: you are incompetent and it shows every time you try to justify your senseless decision.
Thousands of more visitors a year may argue with your statement.
Bzibzioh: Still no avatars while majority wish it
You cannot stand posters who are 'page-fillers,' but at the same time you cannot wait for avatars which are also page-fillers, at best?
Bzibzioh: letting mods abuse their power without any consequences
Unlike you (which I strongly suspect), moderators aren't being paid from tax payers money; they are doing this job on voluntary basis.
|
