75,000 of ye talking - question

padser

To bring us back to where this conversation all started.

BossArky wrote:

At a rough estimation 75,000 users for a population of roughly 4 million (give or take those overseas) means that approx 1% of the Irish population uses this site.

Its an extremely rough estimation, how anyone could think that any multiple of 75 is ever going to 1% of any multiple of 4 beggers belief. Common sense I would have thought.

Its actually just under 2%.

BossArky wrote:

Subtract the babies and grannies and non internet ready and that means that almost everyone online is using this site.

I kinda doubt that grannies and babies make up 99% of the Irish population.

Taking boards membership to be either 1% or 2% (whichever estimate you prefer) Im sure if you check the CSO you will find that at least 30 or 40% of Irish people are online (Ill call it 20% to be safe) , so at the very most 1 out of every 10 people online in Ireland uses boards.

WizZard

padser wrote:

...so at the very most 1 out of every 10 people online in Ireland uses boards.

How mad is that?

DeVore

Come on people...

Clearly we are employing some hubris with the 75,000 number similar to how a parent puffs out their chest when they relate their childs bronze medal at the community games or local chess meet.

There arent 75,000 people on this site this minute, day, week or year.
Ecksor gave the stats:
24 Hours: 3104
7 days: 8424
30 days: 14195
6 Months: 31752
12 Months: 44149

I think the top two are the most important imho...

btw:
Most users ever online was 1,512, 28-07-2006 at 14:02.
When did we stop noting that?? (rhetorical/philosophical question)
I was shocked to see that just now....

Anyway, the number of guests is ALWAYS higher then logged in users, usually about 1:1.5 ratio which should be considered (though at least a large chunk of those users have accounts and may well log in during the week which will include them in the weekly numbers).

As far as percentages go, I doubt we have more then 10% of the the online audience in Ireland. Currently.

As for the slow down in registrations, its only slight and I would imagine its the pyramid-scheme limiting effect kicking in... ie: pretty soon the word of mouth method of reaching people is going to start reaching people who have already been reached. I dont think its about topping out the audience I think the audience is simply no longer as fertile as some of the target people already have accounts....


DeV.

Hobbes

What we need is a new sex and sexuality forum to help boost subscribers again.

Victor

DeVore wrote:

There arent 75,000 people on this site this minute, day, week or year.
Ecksor gave the stats:
24 Hours: 3104
7 days: 8424
30 days: 14195
6 Months: 31752
12 Months: 44149

I think the top two are the most important imho...

Not necessarily, quite a few people have told me they don't post / join, they just read.

BossArky

padser wrote:

To bring us back to where this conversation all started etc etc.

Obviously rough, approx and hyperbole mean nothing to you. The point of the thread was to find # of active users.

Back on topic, some new fangled gizmo is required to get people signed up. How about only allowing people who are not logged in to browse a subset of forums? i.e. After Hours & The Cuckoo's Nest (probably not the best two forums to have only accessible to the general public). This would force new sign-ups as they will know that there is a heap of other info accessible if they bother to actively sign-up.

However, seeing that for the other point of view it does annoy me when the New York times or some such site asks you to create an account to read the news.

Verita

DeVore wrote:

btw:
Most users ever online was 1,512, 28-07-2006 at 14:02.
When did we stop noting that?? (rhetorical/philosophical question)
I was shocked to see that just now....



DeV.

It was mentioned at the time. There is a post on Feed back somewhere.

http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/28/google_earth_swastika/ Is the reason.

DeVore

Thats a bit drastic Bossarky!! lol

I dont want to "force" people to do anything, why would I? Yes I like the fact that Boards grows like a weed but I'm not really into forcing people to do stuff to continue that. *shrug*

DeV.

stevenmu

BossArky wrote:

Back on topic, some new fangled gizmo is required to get people signed up. How about only allowing people who are not logged in to browse a subset of forums? i.e. After Hours & The Cuckoo's Nest (probably not the best two forums to have only accessible to the general public). This would force new sign-ups as they will know that there is a heap of other info accessible if they bother to actively sign-up.

I think letting people see what they're missing out on is more of an incentive to get people to sign up.

Mojito

Vexorg wrote:

For whats its worth

The 75,000 are the registered users, no accounts are deleted.

Last week there were average of 24,279 unique visitors a day.


V.

bollox!

DeVore

We dont delete accounts as a policy because it allows the user to reregister with that name. There are 1500 people online concurrently for a good deal of the day with an average stay of about 30 minutes each (afaik). Vex would have gotten that number from Ecksor or Regi I expect and I have no reason to doubt him (nor by the looks of things have you). Looks like a reasonable number to me. Remember a unique visitor is one unique IP (afaik) which means that repeated dialups will show as duplicates but also an office (like say, Dell will show up as one unique user when in fact it is many.

DeV.

Mojito

FuzzyLogic wrote:

Curious that registrations seems to have slacked off a little this year.
Is this the registered people levelling off?
Ie- almost everyone in Ireland who is actively online (and who signs up on forums, not lurks) already has a boards account?

hmmm

The majority of people I know who are online don't have a boards.ie account, the "75,000 of ye talking" is nonsense. 75,000 created accounts yes, but it just doesn't have they same catch now...

Mojito

DeVore wrote:

We dont delete accounts as a policy because it allows the user to reregister with that name.

They would have to be really stupid to reregister with the same name (and I can imagine some are) I would have thought it would have to do with the posts that that banned user would have previously made?

po0k

Go read a book, inspect your navel or volunteer for some charity work.

Goat save us from pedants.

Mojito

SyxPak wrote:

Hey your pic's in the wrong thread, you should have posted your pick in the "Know your nerds" thread.

Agent Smith

Mojito wrote:

Hey your pic's in the wrong thread, you should have posted your pick in the "Know your nerds" thread.

"SPLAT"


MY sides Just Split.....



Idiot.


With the Idea Of Making some forums Hidden to unlogged in users/ non-members, would that Not strain the servers, haveing a HUGE amount of people logged in at the same time? using DeV's Figure of 1:1.5.

secret_squirrel

agent smith wrote:

With the Idea Of Making some forums Hidden to unlogged in users/ non-members, would that Not strain the servers, haveing a HUGE amount of people logged in at the same time? using DeV's Figure of 1:1.5.

Not sure what you are getting at. It would just increase the occurence of the 'you dont have access to this forum messages' and the simple (and therefore quick, Im assuming) sql query that runs to check access. I cant see that being a significant additional load.

Unless of course the private forums listing is maintained in a heath-robinson fashion.