Site Stats

[chris_thomas]

Who is the best person to talk to regarding site stats?
I've done my analysis of Sydenham Forum for my MA dissertation but I now have to put it into the context of total members etc.

Could the relevant person PM me?

Best regards

Chris

[admin]

T'is me. What would you like to know?
Let's share it with everyone.

Admin

[chris_thomas]

Hi

Sorry for the delay in replying, I have been analysing the posts!

Few things really:

I've analysed the month of Feb: number of posts, by person and by group. Did this all by hand. Is there a report you could possibly run off that does this automatically?

Woud you know how many people have been active in a certain time span i.e viewing not just posting.

Total members at the moment is 2345, how many of these have been active i.e viewed or posted in the last year.

What I am trying to analyse is the percentage of people who post v the percentage of people who view, out of the total membership.

Any info you have on this would be much appreciated.

[admin]

Sorry for my delay .. heavy project.

In answer to your questions. STF uses the phpBB forum software. phpBB does not as standard provide any statistical breakdowns. The only thing that is doing that is the site monitor (http://sydenham.org.uk/stats) which covers the whole site and hence is not orientated to analysing posting behaviour.

There are phpBB plugins at phpbb.com - I don't know if any of these could do the job but if you find any I will have a go at installing them.

However you can get some of the answers by manipulating the members list. You can order by column (by clicking on it). This will enable you with a deft bit of work to determine how many were active in any last period. You can order by posts ... and so on.

You should be aware that we now have a policy of deleting new users who have not posted within a few weeks of registration. Posts in TownMarket get expired after 30/90 days. And, as a guide the ratio of unregistered visits to logged in user visits is believed to be 10:1.

So statistical analysis is a bit challenging. Absolutes are difficult but relative rates I believe are more reliable. If you want to email me your analysis I would be delighted to comment on it from my point of view if that would be helpful. my email is admin at bizz dot co dot uk.

Admin

[chris_thomas]

Many thanks for the info.

I'll post you the analysis when Ive completed it.

Interesting rule you have about posters. So in theory anybody on the site will have to have posted at least once after a few weeks of registeration.

Jacob Neilsen has a theory on Audience Participation Inequality in forums which I am investigating which is that 90% of content comes from 1% of the membership. I think your forum comes out at roughly 2.5% (based on a membership of 2345)

Speak soon

Chris

[admin]

Interesting rule you have about posters. So in theory anybody on the site will have to have posted at least once after a few weeks of registeration.

Yes. This is to stop a practice of spammers who registered, did nothing, and later when thought to be under the radar - started their evil work.

Jacob Neilsen has a theory on Audience Participation Inequality in forums which I am investigating which is that 90% of content comes from 1% of the membership. I think your forum comes out at roughly 2.5% (based on a membership of 2345)

Around 50% of the membership have never posted (registered prior to the rule change). So of active posters 1.25% is close.

However , you have to take into account the demographic. Some of the heaviest posters are young, single and mobile. Got time on their hands? I observe 'generations' of them who have moved into Sydenham then got a better job and moved away - or just got 'partnered'. Either way - they suddenly stopped.

Lost posters but not a bad thing. Too many posts from too few is a danger to all Forums creating what appears to be a ruling clique to others. So the arrival of nieve young people and the retirement of the old codgers is welcome here. Well some old codgers ...

Admin

[chris_thomas]

Do you think there's any chance you could fill in the questionnaire I sent through to you by the weekend. It would be good to have a web masters point of view for my dissertation.

Best regards


Chris

[Robin Orton]

So the arrival of nieve young people and the retirement of the old codgers is welcome here. Well some old codgers ...

Names, please, Admin.

[Robin Orton]

I'm slightly surprised this thread hasn't attracted more posts. Don't we all feel a warm glow of narcissistic satisfaction that a visitor from far away is interested in the rituals and kinship systems of our tribe? I certainly do.

The question of the age, marital (or whatever one says nowadays) and (geographical) mobility of posters is interesting. Would one way of looking at this be on the basis of what sort of things different sorts of people might post about?

It seems to me that behind their username masks posters adopt a number of quite well-defined roles, although in practice no doubt some adopt different roles at different times. Here, I suggest, are some of them:

1. 'Newsletter readers' - people who want to know what's going on in the area. (Presumably many of these will be content to remain 'guests'.)
2. 'Journalists' - people who write articles in the 'newsletter'.
3. Campaigners -people who want to attract support for a cause ( closure of Sydenham Library, 'Kirkdale Village' etc.) or moan about Lewisham Council.
4. People who need advice (how to deal with noisy neighbours, is Sydenham a nice place to live, etc, what's the best school, etc.)
5. People who need reassurance that Sydenham is trendy rather than chavvy - whether because they have status insecurity, or are worried about house prices, I'm never quite sure.
6. People who need emotional support (just been burgled, mugged, etc)
7. People who want to socialize with like-minded others, through showing off, sharing jokes, one-upmanship, scapegoating etc but in a safe and detached sort of way, with maximum control over how much of themselves they expose to their interlocutors
8.People who want an argument of the kind where the typical expression of disagreement is 'What a load of bollocks!' or 'You wanker!'
9. People of trollish disposition who aim to see how far they can go in winding others up without being banned.
10. People who feel they have a mission to promote community solidarity
11. People who want an argument of a kind where the typical expression of dissent is ' I agree in general, and you will recall that Schopenhauer says something on exactly these lines (although I'm afraid I can't quite lay my hands on the precise reference), but there is one tiny qualification I suggest you might like to consider...' (People in this category sometimes get into argument with people in category 8, and vice versa, which can cause friction.)

My hypothesis would be that the 'young, single and mobile' - those who come and go to and from the forum quite rapidly- are likely to be over-represented in categories 7-9 (although perhaps 7 attracts people from all ages and status); more established people, whether single, partnered or with families, in categories 1-6; and older people (isn't it them who are most likely to have time on their hands?) and perhaps also academic/creative types who spend a lot of time working on their computers at home, in categories 10-11. I wonder whether Admin's data would provide the basis of a statistical analysis to test that hypothesis?

I assume that there are few if any under 21 year olds in the 'young and single' category. I guess most teenagers tend to find it difficult to socialise confidently with older people, and perhaps in any case many of them will not yet acquired the skills in stringing sentences together into continuous prose to feel comfortable with the discursive style which largely characterizes this forum - or am I maligning them?

Also, older people will presumably be under-represented, because many of them (including some educated and articulate people) either do not have computers or lack confidence in using them.

[CaptainCarCrash]

Well Robin, I think you have excelled yourself however the word chavvy is derogatory and demeaning to a specific demographic of the community. other than that your post reads like a flawless victory.

Considering you have made some very good points and pretty much covered all bases you have neglected the nemesis of all local forums. Arrogant ramblings from incoherent strangers V's facebook, where everybody is your friend.

Social networking is the new kid on the block and stuffy conversations about parking on double yellows and filming pisshead street drinkers in an attempt to become the pillar of the community doesn't really do it for many young people if any. Theres a faceless anonymity to forums that seems to be dying out because of the new breed of intelligent internet tools designed to give people real time interactivity and its what people want?

*insert intelligent banter here*

Maybe older people will keep the fora flame alight? but most young and older people alike want action from places like facebook and it's spreading like wildfire.

[Robin Orton]

the word chavvy is derogatory and demeaning to a specific demographic of the community

.

I know that, Mike. I hope my use of it didn't give offence. It was an attempt, feeble no doubt, to satirize those who use the word (or some genteel circumlocution for it) with an (apparently) straight face to characterize Sydenhamers to whom they consider themselves superior.

I'm expect you're right about young people and Facebook. But on a forum you can meet new people (albeit only in cyberspace). On Facebook, you seem to be able to talk only to people you already know. Boring or what?

[CaptainCarCrash]

the word chavvy is derogatory and demeaning to a specific demographic of the community

.

I know that, Mike. I hope my use of it didn't give offence. It was an attempt, feeble no doubt, to satirize those who use the word (or some genteel circumlocution for it) with an (apparently) straight face to characterize Sydenhamers to whom they consider themselves superior.

I'm expect you're right about young people and Facebook. But on a forum you can meet new people (albeit only in cyberspace). On Facebook, you seem to be able to talk only to people you already know. Boring or what?

Hmmm!

Satire is a very tough genra to execute successfully on a forum Robin, I have failed with it many times .

You can bother strangers on facebook as well by joining groups and you can post on peoples walls, you can even send anyone an offer of friendship. I don't use it myself as there is an evil element entwined within its dna that could lead me in to the path of temptation Mawhahahahahaha!

[kennyb2]

Sir,
On my irregular visit here I am shocked and stunned to find that a respected man of the cloth [as I assume Fr Orton to be ] has in the space of one post used the words bollocks chav and wanker.

disregarding the fact that these words fall naturally to describe a certain demographic of SE26 I must say I am shocked and amazed at such language and take it as final proof of the bad influences to be found in SE26.

It bodes ill for Kirkdale vilage, mark my words,


yours
disgusted of Wiltshire

[Robin Orton]

Yes, Kenny, I wondered whether I would get away with it, but I am pleased that Admin has shown his usual (smarm smarm) grown up attitude to these matters. I consider that the words that Disgusted of Wiltshire takes exception to are offensive only if used in a rude, aggressive or bullying way. I maintain that that does not apply to the context in which I used them in my posting.

Whether my clerical namesake (if he exists - Disgusted's parish priest perhaps?) would take the same view, I'm afraid I have no idea.

[kennyb2]

Suerly a man of your erudition would, when the need arose, have written B*****s or C***v or W****r in the traditional manner, or for a man of your status to have written them in latin or french as per tradition?



My apologies if I have slandered you by my assuming you are a man in holy orders, probably resulting from my cursory perusal of posts passim in which it is obvious why so many residents of SE26 show signs of having parents who had no benefit of clergy in their union.

[Robin Orton]

My apologies if I have slandered you by my assuming you are a man in holy orders

Think nothing of it, Kenny. I guess you must be confusing me with the Rev Lund - an easy mistake.