Forum usage analysis

[Ron]

Just completed a little analysis of the Horse Racing Forum usage.

During October there were 77 Active Members (ie posted at least once on the Horse Racing Forum during October).

In the same period there were 36 InActive Members (ie members still registered who had posted at least once on the Horse Racing Forum but not during October, Of those 6 last posted in September, 6 last posted in August, 8 last posted in July and 16 last posted in June.

A list of Inactive Members is attached. If anyone is able to shed any light on any of these it would be helpful for my record keeping.

 

[Tamerlo]

Ron, not a particularly good sign when one third of a club's members don't go through the door; and I'd be interested to knowhow many of the 77 are essentially "passive."
I can't shed any light on specific individuals, but I do feel the reasons are obvious why the forum has become stereotyped and a bit stagnant.

 

[NassauBoard]

Tam, sterotyped and stagnant? Really? To me it seems that we have a good community with some very good work from the likes of Toppy and Cyc with some innovative debates, add in the good tipping and some interesting debates (normally surrounding Chuckles or Shergar) and I think its much more lively than you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Bluesky9]

There are a few names on the list from the 606 days Ron and many i have not seen before. I think having two thirds of the members actively posting in the current month is pretty good and i would say it remains a pretty well rounded forum that is beginning to resemble the best of 606.

 

[Tamerlo]

Nass, I'm not criticising the "community" or individuals, but I do feel that , if you take away 'tipping' and the odd protracted debate originated about a particular horse or race, then the forum doesn't have a lot left.
I also believe that the site has become 'cliquish,' and these are the reasons why there are only a small number of members who actively participate on an ongoing basis.
I'd be interested to know what others think.

 

[Dancingbraveforever]

Its all good and well having a select band of posters chatting merrily away and agreeing with each other day after day.But there are only one or two posters that are willing to stick their necks out with something a little bit off the norm and dare i say a bit controversial.
The same old tittle tattle is obviously not a bad thing but gets kind of boring after a while.This forum desperately needs a Supreme Arkle type of character.The old 606 was a great place to be when he was kicking about.
So Ron if you know who that guy is and his whereabouts i suggest you give him a bell.

 

[rainbowview]

Famouswise - not around any forums at the moment due to work commitments

Nigel - WUM

Bartons Tash WUM

Degs - Posts elsewhere


73 left to work out

 

[Ron]

Here's where they last posted and next to the name is their status as at now (I think most are Newbies). I think the only established members missing (other than Famous and Degs) are primarily from either Football or General Chat Forum.

 

[Ron]

It's interesting that the forum that one would normally associate with being "cliquey", The Daily Thread, has had 45 posters during October. Don't know how that compares with BBC 606. That was so cliquey I didn't go near it.

 

[Ardent1965]

I think the forums fabulous and will try to contribute more to the discussions when i have time, in the meantime i think the regular major contributers (TC,Nass,RV and others) are doing an amazing job. I've been made to feel very welcome. I have no issues.

 

[NassauBoard]

Ron, in regards member turnover, I think its very warming for you to see that we have lost very few 'regular' posters, with probably the exception of Famous (apologies if I have missed others). It shows that yourself and the main instigators (toppy etc) are doing things right.

 

[Bluesky9]

I agree Ron, i do not think the cliques here are like the old 606, there are not so much cliques in my opinion here but rather a few of the more regular posters who actually have relationships and when this is the case they tend to communicate with each other more. The most important thing is i have never really witnessed anyone being rude to anyone or even ignoring them if they are putting up posts that can reasonably be responded to. I think it's quite a friendly forum in the main, I know Shergar gets people going sometime but never really in a nasty way. Funnily i remember when Shergar first appeared on 606 and he really rubbed some up the wrong way with his imaginary followers and pro gambler stuff yet he never responded with anything but civillity and non abrasive language. Now however he has taken on a slightly new persona where he will fire up a debate in a sometimes really contentious way. We need that though as it gets the opinions flowing and i think that a forum is only about opinion sharing and we don't need all agree with each other.

Do you happen to have figures for which members posted the most in the month as this will show how many real core members we have, i would guess 10 - 15.

 

[Ron]

Unfortunately not BS. In fact I don't have access to the site data base; wish I had.

I just have a database of members I set up for running competitions. For this I just went through the last 3 pages here and recorded those that had posted on the DT and those that had posted anywhere else. That left me with a provisional set of inactive members. For those I looked up their posts and, if they had posted in October, I re-classified them. For those that hadn't, I recorded their last post and status.

I don't fancy counting all the posts for each member as that would take ages. What I could do is, at the end of each month, record for each active member their total number of posts, then determine the number of monthly posts from those figures.

I have actually sent a PM to the site owner asking, if I sent him a file of members could he return an extract of the site database just for those members for me to analyse. I don't expect he will but it's worth asking.

 

[TopClass]

Nass, I'm not criticising the "community" or individuals, but I do feel that , if you take away 'tipping' and the odd protracted debate originated about a particular horse or race, then the forum doesn't have a lot left.
I also believe that the site has become 'cliquish,' and these are the reasons why there are only a small number of members who actively participate on an ongoing basis.
I'd be interested to know what others think.

Hi Tam, interesting point. I always read your contrbutions to the forum so it surprises me you felt a little bit like things were cliquish. I've always felt very welcome here since I joined, and this is far more open than the old BBC 606, look at the various people who start off the daily thread as opposed to just one or two people.

I just wondered if you could explain what you mean a little bit more, so Ron (as he is moderating) and everyone can have a think if anything needs to change slightly?


I actually think that there are is only say half of the forum that actually enjoys discussing racing, whereas the ones we rarely see posting are probably more into the betting side of things. So when it comes to matters outside of the daily thread, perhaps that is why we have relatively the same amount of us discussing those various topics.

 

[Ron]

There were 61 active members during October on non Daily Racing threads.

What might be surprising is that there were only 29 members who were active on DT AND other threads.

 

[Tamerlo]

TopClass, no big deal. I just feel that the Daily Thread has become a bit of "pat one another on the back" to the exclusion of others.
Yes, you're right, the forum is welcoming and friendly, but personally I'd like more variety and involvement from other members.

 

[Zenyatta]

What might be surprising is that there were only 29 members who were active on DT AND other threads.

I actually think that there are is only say half of the forum that actually enjoys discussing racing, whereas the ones we rarely see posting are probably more into the betting side of things. So when it comes to matters outside of the daily thread, perhaps that is why we have relatively the same amount of us discussing those various topics.

I think this is the answer to the above finding Ron. I think there will inevitably be people who are just interested in the betting side, and others interested in the discussion, and then a few (29) who do both.

For example i don't tend to post on the Daily Thread because i'm not normally around during the day. I therefore participate more in the 'discussion' side of things.

I do feel that the Daily Thread is far less 'cliquey' than it used to be on 606. It is inevitable that it will be to a certain extent because the same people post, so they get to know each other, and it then seems like a new poster is encroaching on a private thread almost! Not sure there is a great deal to be done to prevent this apart from ensuring that new posters are welcomed warmly. At the moment i feel this is being done well.

 

[Cyclonic]

I would be good to get a look at the stats for the racing forum. I don't know whether the people who seem to have gone missing, really are missing. Some such as Fammy are short on time, while folks like Degs prefer other sites, but I suspect that some just keep their head down. I remember seeing some stats offered up by the BBC, which were used to justify the closing of their 606. With about 500,000 hits per week, I would have expected that there would be a ****e load of posting, but the stats showed otherwise. Of the half million, only about 14,000 (I think) actually contributed. So a heap were there just to read. It left me thinking that online folk are pretty much like newspaper buyers. a few will send the occasional letter to the editor, but the vast majority just want to take in information.

 

[JamesTArrogance]

I used to occasionally post on 606 (kind of miss the Arkle baiting days of yesteryear) but I'm more of a gambling fan than of the actual sport. All of the regulars on here have forgotten more than I know on here, but I still read intently.

Keep up the good work, all.

 

[Smokin Beau]

I would be good to get a look at the stats for the racing forum. I don't know whether the people who seem to have gone missing, really are missing. Some such as Fammy are short on time, while folks like Degs prefer other sites, but I suspect that some just keep their head down. I remember seeing some stats offered up by the BBC, which were used to justify the closing of their 606. With about 500,000 hits per week, I would have expected that there would be a ****e load of posting, but the stats showed otherwise. Of the half million, only about 14,000 (I think) actually contributed. So a heap were there just to read. It left me thinking that online folk are pretty much like newspaper buyers. a few will send the occasional letter to the editor, but the vast majority just want to take in information.

cyc, you've hit the nail on the head there

I am on here alot of the time during the day (when at work!) but i rarely contribute. For me, it passes the day reading peoples thoughts on various topics regarding horse racing.