Why is Boards.ie like the Ministry of Truth...

AlmightyCushion

LoLth wrote: »

so of the 657,217 unique visitors, 628060 were not registered users (ie didnt log in) lets say 100,000 of those, for the sake of argument, actually have boards.ie accounts but didnt log in. that leaves 528060 unique visitors.

lets say another 100,000 of those were bots.

that leaves 428060 unique visitors that didnt sign up. lets say 50% of these didnt sign up because they dont like the level of moderation, or dont like the fact that its mainly an irish site or wanted to advertise but read the terms and conditions.

that leaves 214,030 visitors that didnt sign up for other reasons. they went to the trouble of coming here but didnt feel inclined to join. There's no way of knowing so I'm open to suggestions as to how many were put off by the level of abuse they witnessed in a thread or the tone of a thread or two or the language used by members. 1%? 2%?

in my opinion, a policy to make the site more amenable to discussion while making that discussion more pleasant to read, would also serve to entice more of these unique visitors to stay, register and contribute. If it even made a 1% difference, thats a potential 2,140 new members every week (if we assume the figure posted by Darragh is indicative of an average boards.ie week but of course there are trends and peaks and troughs in web traffic, but for argumetns sake lets say it is).

please , and I'm not being facetious or patronising, show me how this could be a bad thing.

yes, I realise my math and assumptions are flawed and quite general but without visitors filling in a questionaire we can only really guess at their reason for visiting in the first place as well as their reason for leaving without signing up.

This is way off. There is a very good chance I'm responsible for a load of those unique visitors. I access this site from a lot of different devices, my phone, laptop, desktop, HTPC, work computer, work laptop, countless college computers, friends computers and probably more. On only my laptop and my desktop am I actually logged in. Sometimes when I don't want to appear as logged in I'll access using incognito mode which doesn't save cookies. Every page I load in incognito mode should then count as a unique visitor. Every time a user not logged in clears their cookies they will appear as a new unique visitor to the site the next time they access. So one actual person who has an account could potentially count as a lot of unique visitors. Especially seeing as college users make up a lot of boards users and seeing as college users would move around from pc to pc throughout the day and week.

Also you're making assumptions as to why people left with no evidence to back it up. Sure it could be they don't like the abuse, it could also be they don't like the colour blue. It's impossible to say. Sure we can guess but if we were gonna do that we may as well base it on something relatively solid instead of just making up any old reason.

I'd say it's more likely to do with the site being used for information. I remember one of the techs saying before that a high percentage of our traffic came from google (can't remember what percentage now but I'm thinking 60%+ for some reason). If someone was accessing this site through google I think it's probable that they don't have an account or probably aren't logged into it if they do. I'd say it's also probable that they are looking for a specific piece of information or the answer to a query/solution to a problem. If they found what they needed here I think it's safe to assume they wouldn't bother creating or logging into an account unless they had a follow up question. Based on my browsing habits even if I didn't get the answer I wanted or I needed a follow up question I'd keep googling instead of signing up or logging in because I'm more likely to find the answer quicker than I would if I asked the question and waited for someone to reply.

While I could be wrong I think my assumptions are more valid than some reason pulled out of thin air, no offence, Lolth.

AlmightyCushion

Wibbs wrote: »

SI really don't think it does LL. Unless someone is logging in we've no clue how many actual people are viewing. In the last 18 months I've noted the reporting of a big increase in forum traffic and not just on Boards. Two words; smart phones and another two words; public wireless. Attributing IP's to unique users is no longer worthwhile as an even vaguely accurate stat building tool. Handy for google to pimp their business model, but not so much otherwise.

Public wireless networks probably don't affect the unique visitors as much. Unique visitors is usually based on a cookie left on the machine as opposed to an ip address. So if you have a laptop that isn't logged into boards and access boards from 100 different IP addresses, you should still count as only 1 unique visitor. If however you access the site from 100 different devices that aren't logged in all on the one IP address then they should all count as a different unique visitor.

P.S. ctrl b doesn't work on chrome so you try not to get too attached to it, in case ye get sick of firefox.

AckwelFoley

Darragh wrote: »

Yes Snyper, some members do. I acknowledge that and appreciate it. As I said though, most people who use this site don't.

.

This is a good point, one i probably didnt consider, but none the less, if i or anyone feels part of an online community, thats how i feel - its not up to anyone to change that. Im not a geek or a nerd, but i do like boards.ie

Darragh wrote: »

.

But seeing as you say you feel part of a community here, same question to you as I put in my very first post in this thread:

.

Ive already stated in my first post that i dont want boards to be a forum for people to abuse others ala youtube or 4chan

Darragh wrote: »

:


I'll repeat this again - Boards.ie is a website of communities. Saying it's a community website is like saying everyone with a mobile phone is a member of the mobile community..

O2 subscribers dont have christmas beers, they dont have a football team, they dont add each other on facebook, they dont business network, they dont actively generate money for christmas charities .... Community website, website of communities.. Hair splitting tbh - the larger a site gets the more communities there will be, its still a community -

Im not argueing with the intended direction, essentially its none of my business what direction this site takes

Darragh wrote: »

I HATE seeing the site's reputation damaged.

And that, for me, is the issue.

I think the vast majority of us that care about the future of this site feel the same way

Darragh

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

This is way off. There is a very good chance I'm responsible for a load of those unique visitors. I access this site from a lot of different devices, my phone, laptop, desktop, HTPC, work computer, work laptop, countless college computers, friends computers and probably more. On only my laptop and my desktop am I actually logged in.

AC, is the site just the lot of us in here and YOU? :P

If you have specific questions about our site traffic you want answered (you seem to know your stuff) post them below and I'll answer them for you as best I can. I won't answer any commercially sensitive ones for obvious reasons but where I can't answer, I'll tell you why.

AlmightyCushion

Darragh wrote: »

AC, is the site just the lot of us in here and YOU? :P

Nah you're forgetting merc_tilt. He's probably responsible for most of those registered accounts.

Darragh wrote: »

If you have specific questions about our site traffic you want answered (you seem to know your stuff) post them below and I'll answer them for you as best I can. I won't answer any commercially sensitive ones for obvious reasons but where I can't answer, I'll tell you why.

Actually yeah, what percentage of traffic comes from search engines? Like I said I remember seeing it before but I can't remember the exact figure.

Logical Fallacy

oscarBravo wrote: »

And that's OK, is it?

I don't know is it?

If it's the established culture that has been allowed to grow in AH then people need to get a concept of how much of a shock it will be to start enforcing stricter rules around the concept of abuse.

Not really sure how you think that me making a comment about AH post content means i am all in support of said content though.

Jazzy

Darragh wrote: »

I want Boards.ie to be the same. Useful for its members, with otherwise inaccessible people invited to come along and answer questions put to them. I want the people who use Boards.ie to find interesting information and to have what they care about discussed - and surely we can do that without profanity and abuse? Surely we don't have to offend people to make a point?

you say surely but tbh, its unlikely. people get passionate and emotional about issues and if its going to be issues they care about then of course you are going to find abuse and profanity - its impossible not to. to deny that is to deny feeling and depth to just about anything that is discussed. the biggest worry for boards should be in making sure certain lines arent crossed, not in trying to stamp it out altogether.

K-9

Jazzy wrote: »

you say surely but tbh, its unlikely. people get passionate and emotional about issues and if its going to be issues they care about then of course you are going to find abuse and profanity - its impossible not to. to deny that is to deny feeling and depth to just about anything that is discussed. the biggest worry for boards should be in making sure certain lines arent crossed, not in trying to stamp it out altogether.

Indeed, there is a point to that. Certain posters often just rant or use swear words and it loses its affect after a while. It's the poster that rarely rants or swears that really makes a point when they use it!

P. Breathnach

Jazzy wrote: »

you say surely but tbh, its unlikely. people get passionate and emotional about issues and if its going to be issues they care about then of course you are going to find abuse and profanity - its impossible not to. to deny that is to deny feeling and depth to just about anything that is discussed. the biggest worry for boards should be in making sure certain lines arent crossed, not in trying to stamp it out altogether.

I think Darragh might be mistaken in lumping profanity and abuse together in one phrase. They are different things.

I don't object to profanity in principle. As a matter of style preference, I think people can communicate more effectively if they do not use a great deal of it. Use fourteen expletives in a ten-line post, and you have lost this member of the audience. If you use about two, I might read and consider what you say.

I have a deep dislike of abusing people, be they members here or otherwise, and if you abuse somebody you lose my sympathy immediately.

Darragh

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think Darragh might be mistaken in lumping profanity and abuse together in one phrase. They are different things.

I'm very happy to accept and agree with that.

Darragh

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

what percentage of traffic comes from search engines? Like I said I remember seeing it before but I can't remember the exact figure.

What time range would you like that figure for? Sorry to be pedantic but want to be specific/realistic...

southsiderosie

Darragh wrote: »

What time range would you like that figure for? Sorry to be pedantic but want to be specific/realistic...

It might skew the data a bit to run it around the time of the bailout and in the run-up to the election - there was an absolute explosion of activity on the site then. The data would probably be more representative for a 'normal' period of activity (although it might be interesting to compare January of this year to January of last year)

/end nerd interloping

AlmightyCushion

Darragh wrote: »

What time range would you like that figure for? Sorry to be pedantic but want to be specific/realistic...

Not really too sure, I'm not really too worried about realisticness as it's really just to satisfy my curiosity. If you could get the data for 2010, that would be great as it would prevent any one thing skewing results.

Darragh

Will get you those over the weekend. For now Happy St Patrick's Day!

AlmightyCushion

Darragh wrote: »

Will get you those over the weekend. For now Happy St Patrick's Day!

Whenever you get a chance, like I say it's just for curiosity's sake, I lurve my stats.

Trojan

Analytics (website traffic measurement) is an interesting beast.

Different services will often report wildly differing numbers of uniques, page views, visits, etc. The reason for that is because those criteria are subjective:

A few (less accurate) services count bots as visitors, others don't.

The tracking methodology makes a difference e.g. Javascript tracking doesn't count JS-disabled browsers, some pixel tracking won't pick up images-disabled, etc. Some bots will change their user-agent to pretend to be people

Then you get even more complications from what is a visit. If I visit the site for 5 minutes at my 11.30 diet coke break, then again at my 12:15-3.45 lunch break, is that one or 2 visits? Most services will count 2 - a 30 minute window is fairly standard.

So every stat that will be supplied is a best estimate approximation. If you really need to compare sites, you must compare like with like analytics - use GA for every site, don't compare StatCounter with AW Stats with GA, etc.

AlmightyCushion

gurramok wrote: »

Gaddffi is an evil bollix, its about time the "UN" did not do another Rwanda and help pro-democracy forces to fight a dictator to prevent a genocide. Funny how Russia and China abstained considering they suppress dissidents.

Its about time the permanent members of the Security council were decided on their democratic credentials rather than who defeated Hitler.

Are we really supposed to act on posts like the above. Technically we should as it breaks the abuse rule but banning/infracting/warning someone for that would be ridiculous.

NeedaNewName

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Are we really supposed to act on posts like the above. Technically we should as it breaks the abuse rule but banning/infracting/warning someone for that would be ridiculous.

I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with that example tbh.

AlmightyCushion

NeedaNewName wrote: »

I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with that example tbh.

How so? How is saying Gaddafi is an evil bollocks any different than saying Jedward are untalented tossers or someone is a cúnt.

NeedaNewName

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

How so? How is saying Gaddafi is an evil bollocks any different than saying Jedward are untalented tossers or someone is a cúnt.

Evil bollicks is not really swearing or insulting, nor is being called untalented. I could call you a bollix and you probably wouldn't mind it. But if I called your mother a Cúnt you might be upset.

Nodin

NeedaNewName wrote: »

Evil bollicks is not really swearing or insulting, ..........

It's both. One might argue over the severity, but its both.

AlmightyCushion

NeedaNewName wrote: »

Evil bollicks is not really swearing or insulting, nor is being called untalented. I could call you a bollix and you probably wouldn't mind it. But if I called your mother a Cúnt you might be upset.

It is, and if you were to call another member an evil bollocks you'd more than likely get a ban for it.

NeedaNewName

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It is, and if you were to call another member an evil bollocks you'd more than likely get a ban for it.

Depends on the circumstances tbh. there are times I think you wouldn't.

AlmightyCushion

NeedaNewName wrote: »

Depends on the circumstances tbh. there are times I think you wouldn't.

Very true. If it was used in an obviously jokey context then I probably wouldn't but that would be for most abuse (words like cúnt for example). In the context it was used in this case I'd ban if it was aimed at another member.

K-9

NeedaNewName wrote: »

Depends on the circumstances tbh. there are times I think you wouldn't.

It would be looked at I'd say, might get away with it in AH, but doubt anywhere else, barring the Thunderdome. Speaking of which, how could it manage under new rules?

Wolfe Tone

On the defamation thing, what about posts which defame another user?

AlmightyCushion

And this thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056212824). People referring to the kids as scumbags, pathetic idiots etc. Once again breaking the abuse rules, should we be acting on these posts as well.

OutlawPete

Darragh

Okay, we're done here, if I'm at the stage of removing irrelevant posts and this is the level the conversation is at.

AC, I'll be back to you with stats on this thread next week. We'll also seek to clarify the rules on abuse. Thanks for tuning in. More to follow.

Darragh

(These stats are different to poster/member statistics, which I'll also try get you...)

We had 16,876,518 visitors and 51,906,580 visits
We had 282,884,089 Pageviews and 8.38 pages/visit.

Of those 51m visits, 40,281,479 visits came from the 26 counties, Dublin accounting for most, followed by Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford, Sligo, Galway, Kilkenny etc

We have an Avg time on site of 00:10:11 and a 40.64% bounce rate. We had a new visits % of 31.04%

Our traffic sources overview looks like this:



So what does this all tell us?

Nothing we didn't know already really. We get a lot of traffic from search engines - when someone, especially in Ireland, googles something, Boards.ie has a habit of showing high in the results.

That's why we have people using the site - they find us useful.

It's also why I feel we shouldn't condone abuse on the site. I don't mean criticism, opinion or feedback here, I mean ABUSE. I know too we need a definition of what "abuse" is.

Would you like to google yourself and find stuff from "anonymous" people calling you a c*nt?

Though I've read every post in this thread so far I still haven't seen one post convincing me that Boards.ie should condone abuse of anyone on the site.