Closing In On 20,000 Members

[KG Erwin]

For a wargaming community, that's not too shabby. [:D]

The new games are strong, and Matrix is attracting new members with its sports line. Some of these new guys are in turn exploring other games, so the expansion into other genres is a good thing, IMHO.

[Raverdave]

IIRC there were less than 10,000 when I joined.  Well done Matrix !

[rhondabrwn]

16695 members and counting... pop the cork... get the bubbly ready... [&o][&o][&o]

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Oh come on guys, we all know the truth, 20,000 means that 20k accounts might have been made, but that doesn't mean we will have 40k eyes visiting and or reading the site.

Let's see, first there are the came here, saw stuff, and then went and never returned accounts.
Then there are the came, spent time, but account failed to work for some reason, so made a new account ones (I don't know if staff have deleted my redundant Hexed Gamer account yet, and it's not my problem for instance).

Plenty of people will be here for a single game, will never post on the forum, and hardly are reason to get giddy about.

This forum is likely supported by a hundred members, not a few thousand members.
It's like the "views" numbers for threads, that isn't how many unique individuals have read it, it's how many times the thread was opened, nothing else.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

For instance

Member & g t ; & g t ; e X & l t ; & l t ; (edit, name typed in so it will actually type in, thus spaces between characters is forced) (yes that's the actual name eh) who signed up on 8/29/2003 and has posted zero posts.

You actually plan to honestly consider that member still here?

I've done name searches before on forums, and it's easy to see, that in a lot of cases, the name makes it clear, the member was just going through the motions to get an account at the time.

I've done the math over at SZO before for instance. The majority of the membership has zero posts. Sorry, but you can call it what you like, but I consider a member with zero posts, only a person joining to get full access to a site. I call a person a member only if they participate.

[jchastain]

I think it was intended as a "hurray for us; we're nearing a milestone" thread and not as a reasoned analysis of the value of each individual registration.  Even the worst team in every conference celebrates homecoming with a pep rally.  Just in case you were wondering, the kids who show up with mathematical proofs that the team isn't doing well usually don't become the popular ones.  [;)]

[Terminus]

Wedgies, anyone?

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Myself, while not worried by the numbers (life is really not that serious to me ), I WOULD like to be able to understand the numbers for what they mean.

I just did some looking. 20 pages of members with join dates at the beginning ie mid 2000 but all with just one post. That's a looooooong list of people that said something once, and then never again. And considering they have been on the rolls since the beginning.

I just wish we could know who's still present.

[Brigz]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Wedgies, anyone?

Every party has it's pooper. That's why Les is here.

But seriously. I don't think anyone believes there are 20,000 people participating actively on the Matrix site. But then I guess certain more intelligent people think the rest of us are just plain ignorant.[8|]

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

For instance

Member & g t ; & g t ; e X & l t ; & l t ; (edit, name typed in so it will actually type in, thus spaces between characters is forced) (yes that's the actual name eh) who signed up on 8/29/2003 and has posted zero posts.

You actually plan to honestly consider that member still here?

I've done name searches before on forums, and it's easy to see, that in a lot of cases, the name makes it clear, the member was just going through the motions to get an account at the time.

I've done the math over at SZO before for instance. The majority of the membership has zero posts. Sorry, but you can call it what you like, but I consider a member with zero posts, only a person joining to get full access to a site. I call a person a member only if they participate.

Nah, I think "lurkers" definitely count. Now "last visit" would be a valid criteria for evaluating the quality of their membership.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

16695 members and counting... pop the cork... get the bubbly ready... [&o][&o][&o]

And today it says 19703... that is quite a jump in a few days.

And looking over the newbies, I see quite a few of them making posts. One had 22 posts in his first two days. So, I would say that the "new crop" seems to have staying potential.

[rhondabrwn]

Sorry to keep doing this... another thought.

Perhaps the board totals should have a count for "total members" and also "members online within the past XX Months"? That would be more indicative of the level of active membership on the board.

[Erik Rutins]

In fact, there are more than 20,000 people viewing these forums since the majority don't bother to create a member account. Regardless of duplicate or temporary accounts, it's still a milestone. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
...20 pages of members with join dates at the beginning ie mid 2000 but all with just one post. That's a looooooong list of people that said something once, and then never again. And considering they have been on the rolls since the beginning.

You know, some people only post once but the post really means something. Other people post every few seconds with rather useless stuff ...

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck
You know, some people only post once but the post really means something. Other people post every few seconds with rather useless stuff ...

Surely not![X(][:D][:'(]

[Zap]

I don't know Les_the_Sarge_9_1,

I just counted only a portion of recent posters, in the games threads and in the General Discussion. The number seems to be more than the 100 you mentioned. So, to be more accurate, you will have to revise the number given of active users. Don't be so pessimistic.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Where did I use the sum 100?

Just wondering.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
...20 pages of members with join dates at the beginning ie mid 2000 but all with just one post. That's a looooooong list of people that said something once, and then never again. And considering they have been on the rolls since the beginning.

You know, some people only post once but the post really means something. Other people post every few seconds with rather useless stuff ...

Yeah Marc, you really should stop doing that.

[Drex]

I remember when I joined, each member had a number which was kind of neat when the membership was smaller. I think David Heath was Number One but maybe some of the older guys remember better. Can any of you remember your number? I can't remember mine, senility has taken over.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
...20 pages of members with join dates at the beginning ie mid 2000 but all with just one post. That's a looooooong list of people that said something once, and then never again. And considering they have been on the rolls since the beginning.

You know, some people only post once but the post really means something. Other people post every few seconds with rather useless stuff ...

Yeah Marc, you really should stop doing that.

I actually had you in mind[:'(]