100,000 posts - time to assess the benefits

[David Robertson]

At the time of writing, there have been 99,749 posts to this forum. By the time I finish the current sentence, if he's still online, Roger de Coverly will likely have propelled it past the magic number. (Better add emoticon here, or OMH might ban me)

So the questions arise. After all this chat:

* what's changed?
* what's been improved?
* what's been damaged?
* what's to come (apart from the 100,000th post)?

I should add that, from a skim of of 888 registered forum members:

* 800 people post nothing
* 50% of all posts are from c.25 people
* RdC personally accounts for 8% of all posts; and nearly 18% of posts since 2010

[Carol Williams]

At the time of writing, there have been 99,749 posts to this forum. By the time I finish the current sentence, if he's still online, Roger de Coverly will likely have propelled it past the magic number. (Better add emoticon here, or OMH might ban me)

So the questions arise. After all this chat:

* what's changed?
* what's been improved?
* what's been damaged?
* what's to come (apart from the 100,000th post)?

I should add that, from a skim of of 888 registered forum members:

* 800 people post nothing
* 50% of all posts are from c.25 people
* RdC personally accounts for 8% of all posts; and nearly 18% of posts since 2010

David - you need to get out more

While I think about the main questions; a few words of advice for Roger. Get annoyed and ask Carl to delete your account. Rethink after a couple of weeks and reregister. You lose any personal stats which may be commented on

Paul - don't wind Roger up

Roger - keep posting

[Roger de Coverly]

I should add that, from a skim of of 888 registered forum members:

* 800 people post nothing
* 50% of all posts are from c.25 people
* RdC personally accounts for 8% of all posts; and nearly 18% of posts since 2010

The atticus forum was basically "the owner" versus the world. When "the owner" had some totally obscure dispute against one of the other local clubs and ceased posting, the atticus forum died as an active area of discussion.

[Mick Norris]

At the time of writing, there have been 99,749 posts to this forum. By the time I finish the current sentence, if he's still online, Roger de Coverly will likely have propelled it past the magic number. (Better add emoticon here, or OMH might ban me)

So the questions arise. After all this chat:

* what's changed?
* what's been improved?
* what's been damaged?
* what's to come (apart from the 100,000th post)?

I should add that, from a skim of of 888 registered forum members:

* 800 people post nothing
* 50% of all posts are from c.25 people
* RdC personally accounts for 8% of all posts; and nearly 18% of posts since 2010

Answers:
I know some people (mostly online) that I didn't before
We know more about English Chess
English Chess
More of the same

[Andrew Zigmond]

A blogger recently described in a leading chess publication as `acerbic` has given his take on this thread (I won't give the link as we all know where to find it). An old phrase about lies, damned lies and statistics springs to mind.

[Peter Shaw]

"Out of 888 registered users, 800 have never posted anything at all!"

Clearly Giddins didn't check the facts before writing this. Actually only 277 have never posted anything at all. There are 800 users who have made less than 200 posts.

[Carl Hibbard]

"Out of 888 registered users, 800 have never posted anything at all!"

Clearly Giddins didn't check the facts before writing this. Actually only 277 have never posted anything at all. There are 800 users who have made less than 200 posts.

You expect Steve to check his facts before blogging

[IanDavis]

A forum is for discussion, much of it idle. It is not a vehicle for government. A blog is the modern alternative to toilet roll.

[Carl Hibbard]

I suppose David might have typoed 800 instead of 300 and Steve copied it blindly. I imagine he will correct his post...

Yes of course he will

[Sean Hewitt]

"Out of 888 registered users, 800 have never posted anything at all!"

Clearly Giddins didn't check the facts before writing this. Actually only 277 have never posted anything at all. There are 800 users who have made less than 200 posts.

In fairness, he quoted David Robertson and simply comments on the statistics David provided.

[John Philpott]

I wonder how long it will be before the alternative blog at http://stevegibbonschessblog.blogspot.co.uk/ comments on this?

[Andrew Zigmond]

Not that Mr Giddins will care but he seems to have jumped on the fact that 50% of posts are by 25% of users to imply that the remaining 75% never post anything, which isn't quite the case.

The majority of posts seem to be in General Chat where the conversation is pretty harmless. A breakdown of posts and contributors to ECF Matters might be more revealing.

[Ian Kingston]

"Out of 888 registered users, 800 have never posted anything at all!"

Clearly Giddins didn't check the facts before writing this. Actually only 277 have never posted anything at all. There are 800 users who have made less than 200 posts.

To check the facts SG would have to be a registered user, which he doesn't seem to be at present. However, even had those numbers been correct, some of the conclusions he draws would be wrong.

Every Internet forum attracts a small core of frequent posters, a larger group of occasional posters and a long tail of very occasional posters. There is also a very large group of unregistered users (lurkers). This forum is no exception. Just now, 'In total there are 47 users online :: 8 registered, 2 hidden and 37 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)'. Those 37 guests are important. They show that the forum reaches far beyond the registered users and regular posters.

What's more, the lurkers and infrequent posters have their own views and are more than capable of sifting through the views and opinions of the regulars. They simply don't enjoy or have time for online discussions, which can, quite frankly, be a futile exercise. This leads to the impression that the obsessives (maybe 'addicts' would be a better word) are in charge. However, those who merely read the forum rapidly learn to filter those arguments and discount the repetition and the hobby horses.

This forum's existence means that hundreds (if not thousands) of ordinary players are better informed about the ECF and English chess in general that has ever previously been the case. The difficulty is that some posters lack the discipline and self-awareness to know when enough is enough. Certain topics rumble on and on long past the point at which anything new will be said or minds changed. If I had one wish, it's that every poster, having made their point and perhaps clarified it once or twice, would simply stop. Post again on the same topic when something new comes up, certainly, but endless repetition doesn't add clarity or convince anyone. Favour quality, not quantity; signal, not noise.

If I had a second wish it would be that posts would stay on topic and be reasonably concise, correctly spelled and grammatically correct (within reason - everybody makes mistakes). I'm sure that there's a parallel universe where this actually happens.

A third wish is that we could talk about chess more and chess politics less.

Enough. The saddle on my high horse is chafing.

[Carl Hibbard]

They show that the forum reaches far beyond the registered users and regular posters.

As the statistics point out we get a little under 2,000 unique visitors per day

[Martin Regan]

Given the sheer volume of Roger's postings - I am assuming he is retired - and given that 99.99999% recurring of the posts are about the membership scheme, I wonder what Carl will do when Roger finally (hopefully) chucks in the towel. Tumbleweed will blow through the forum.