Educational

Author Topic: 2012 - a retrospective  (Read 38807 times)

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline 'andersom'

  • Pure Chocolate Bovine PIMP of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 39199
  • Karma: 2556
  • Gender: Female
  • well known as hyke.
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #120 on: November 11, 2012, 01:06:55 PM »
For something completely different, just checked my memory, thought mine was failing.....

People mentioning missing Randy, and the interaction they had with him. Some joined here joined after me. I could not remember ever having encountered Randy on this place, apart from posts he had left behind.

Indeed, last time he was active on this place was December 8 2007.

So, not senile yet.

Randy has had several accounts here. I don't remember what his last one was, tbh.

Still think I have not encountered him. Missed out on ginseng posts, or pm's. Do recall a lot of his posts being dug up, and, it was worth it.  :laugh:

......

Shit, may have to see a geriatrist after all.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 01:08:33 PM by hykeaswell »
I can do upside down chocolate moo things!

Offline Adam

  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 24530
  • Karma: 1260
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #121 on: November 11, 2012, 01:13:43 PM »
And I didnt forget about Calavera.

You didn't mention him, so it was a fair assumption to make.

No, because (again) you're missing the point - Butterflies is not seperating the membership into under 30s and over 30s


Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #122 on: November 11, 2012, 01:20:58 PM »
And I didnt forget about Calavera.

You didn't mention him, so it was a fair assumption to make.

No, because (again) you're missing the point - Butterflies is not seperating the membership into under 30s and over 30s

I know when Scrap was last here with Squiddy and Eris and Binty it was not "vibrant". I know that having "young people" here does not equate to making it vibrant and I know you would not be making such a stupid association between the the two terms, right?
Young posters =/= vibrant
Young posters can be vibrant but this is not causal.

So taking this into account what do you think she is saying and what are you supporting?
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline 'Butterflies'

  • Mastermind of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • Karma: 625
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #123 on: November 11, 2012, 01:36:35 PM »


Adam and Schleed are posting here. Binty wanted away from every kind of forum, AFAIK. Trigger is around, every now and then, but was never a particularly frequent poster. Eris and quite a few of the younger folks got along swimmingly, I seem to remember, as did Penty and mostly everyone.


I'm not talking about the reasons for anyone leaving. They all had their own reasons. Im saying that the site doesnt work as well without them, and that they have never been replaced.

Quote
Unless your main driving force here is generating drama, I don't understand your point at all.

The point of that post was to answer Les' question. My overall point is that this site worked well when there was a good mix of old and young. Now that there is no real mix, I dont feel that the site works anywhere near as well.


Quote
You don't have the answers but still feel there is little to attract younger members? Do you know what younger members would like? Do you know what younger members WOULDN'T like?

I know what I would like, and I know what I dont like.
I do believe that most young people would like a site with other young people on it.


Quote
I'm confused. I2 doesn't have what you want, yet you don't know what you want or what others in your age group want? Yours seems like a very confused generation, tbh.

I know what I want. I have no idea how to achieve it though.



Quote
Me, I'm content with the pub-like atmosphere we do have, and quite a few of the other grumpies seem to accept it, too. True, not every young folk is allowed into a pub, but then again, that is why they invented latte houses and placed McDonald's restaurants in every corner.

OK, I like the word "grumpies." :laugh: That is probably more accurate than "oldies," so I'll use that word instead.

Ive also been thinking of a pub as a good analogy too, so.
In the best pubs, you have a good mix of regulars who different people of different ages. In the past, this place was like a good pub. I would come in, speak to my "grumpy" mates, have a few shots with them, and then go and hang out with the youngsters at the slot machines. If things got a bit dull, I could still shoot some pool with my "grumpy" mates.
Nowadays, I can still come to the pub and meet my "grumpy" mates, but theres no real group of youngsters to create a good balance.


Quote
CBC's declining posting average is a bigger factor, tbh

In January to March 2011, there was generally between 330 and 800 new posts per day, with it exceeding 1000 once. Over the last three months, there has generally been between 69 and 240 new posts per day, with it getting into the 300s a few times. CBC currently has a posting average of 36.6 posts per day. She appears to still be posting regularly, so it seems unlikely that any drop in her posting would have amounted to more than 20 fewer posts per day on the forum.
Also, the "new posts" stat is only one stat. The "most online" stat, which shows how many members have been online each day has dropped by roughly a third in the same timescale.

Offline 'Butterflies'

  • Mastermind of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • Karma: 625
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #124 on: November 11, 2012, 01:51:06 PM »
For something completely different, just checked my memory, thought mine was failing.....

People mentioning missing Randy, and the interaction they had with him. Some joined here joined after me. I could not remember ever having encountered Randy on this place, apart from posts he had left behind.

Indeed, last time he was active on this place was December 8 2007.

So, not senile yet.

Randy was online for a few weeks after I joined. Hes not the type Im likely to forget :laugh:

Im sure I just saw a post from you saying that twitter and other more modern social media might be a contributing factor in why there are so few young people now, but I cant find it to quote it.
You could well be right. I cant say I know anything about social media, apart from that it icks me out :laugh: I suppose people have more options for where to spend their time online, and it could be that forums are feeling it the most. It is also true that the "grumpies" are more likely to stay where they are, whilst younger people are more likely to try the new stuff. It could be that this problem is not exclusive to this forum.
I definitely dont think that its the reason why so many young people have stopped posting, but it could certainly be a large part of the reason why so few are coming along to replace them.

Offline 'Butterflies'

  • Mastermind of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • Karma: 625
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #125 on: November 11, 2012, 02:19:07 PM »


A dying site or a site that is just bereft of a lot of activity for a time. These are two very different things.
Before answering. over the last 5 or 6 years, there have been other similar times where the stats have similarlydropped and even to levels lower than this.
So can you clarify what you meant? Dying site or a site with a drop in activity?
I honestly don't care if young people or old people post. I don't care if you or Binty or Eris or Scrap or whomever post
I know when Scrap was last here with Squiddy and Eris and Binty it was not "vibrant". I know that having young people here does not equate to making it vibrant and I know you would not be making such a stupid association between the the two terms, right?
Young posters =/= vibrant
Young posters can be vibrant but this is not causal.

In 2008 there appears to have been a time during the second half of the year when things werent going great. There was often only around 12 members online per day, although they seemed to do a lot of posting. Possibly down Callandale.
The site seemed to pick up in early 2009, and seemed to go from strength to strength for the next few years.
If the site hadnt picked up, I struggle to believe that it would still be here today. Of course, the same applies to the site now. It could easily take off again, and become a great site again, but it could just as easily continue to go downhill until nobody is left.

To answer your original question, when something is in sharp decline, people often refer to it as dying. Only time will tell if this site is really dying, or if it is just going through a rough patch. I imagine that eventually the site will either pick up again, or will end up like The Drivel. I dont know what the future holds for this site.

To answer your other question, having a lot of young people on a site does not make it vibrant. Having a good mix of people of all ages does contribute towards making it vibrant.

Offline 'Butterflies'

  • Mastermind of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • Karma: 625
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #126 on: November 11, 2012, 02:20:59 PM »
lol Les have you not been reading what Butterflies said?

She's not talking about biologica/legal age

Seems to me she was. Certainly she has not qualified it in any other way.

The "young at heart" bullshit is, well, bullshit. Seems to me it's simply something you excuse yourself with when forming a clique consisting of people you happen to like.

Unless you actually have defined what the youth demographic group want to see here and I just missed it.

Im not talking about biological age.

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #127 on: November 11, 2012, 02:33:22 PM »
And I didnt forget about Calavera.

You didn't mention him, so it was a fair assumption to make.

No, because (again) you're missing the point - Butterflies is not seperating the membership into under 30s and over 30s

You are missing my point, which is that Butterflies did in fact not mention Calavera. Bloody spazz.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #128 on: November 11, 2012, 02:40:16 PM »
lol Les have you not been reading what Butterflies said?

She's not talking about biologica/legal age

Seems to me she was. Certainly she has not qualified it in any other way.

The "young at heart" bullshit is, well, bullshit. Seems to me it's simply something you excuse yourself with when forming a clique consisting of people you happen to like.

Unless you actually have defined what the youth demographic group want to see here and I just missed it.

Im not talking about biological age.

You want "young" people to post here, mixed with the "old". As you haven't bothered to define either, I have to go with what the words actually mean. But feel free to tell the readership what you actually mean.

Unless it is what I said, that you use the terms loosely to define a clique consisting of people you like.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #129 on: November 11, 2012, 02:51:32 PM »
Just a few things and at risk of repeating myself over and over, I think I would like to have this clarified.

If you are not talking  young or old in biological terms then what is the term you are associating with young and old?
If it is emotional or mental, then what is your term of reference? How do you measure against their actual age and their (emotional/mental?) age? How do you measure them up against others? What aspects of them do you configure their "age" against (apart from how they type on a keyboard)?

These are serious questions because of this.

There was a time that you and Adam and Squid in particular decided to go to extreme lengths to drive a propaganda campaign here about this place being crap, that there were too many older people, that the older people were no good and the site was failing, that the older people were part of a clique and so on. The answer was to encourage everyone who was young (and cool) to leave here and go to Spasticity and later to Zomgreloaded). When you started getting back up early in the piece by Scrap and a couple of the others who were older you all welcomed them in and amended earlier comments to allow young at heart or some such.
The sites did not do so well. The young clique broke down a bit. (Eris and Bint had a falling out and Squiddy and Scrap stopped posting on forums, etc). Now with the MLA starting this thread showing a drop in activity, I see you dragging up dead and buried ideologies. Ones that died a well deserved death back then.

I see you making overtures as to vibrance and young people here. One does not equate to the other so why are you making these associations?

Why are you suggesting that the place is dying when it has mant times in the last 6 or so years had times of similar levels or worse inactivity and never died? What is the purpose in stating it is dying?

Why are you inferring that the young people left because of the old or because of the culture?

Are you really just saying that you would like more people that you like here and that you would call them "young"?

I do not understand why you are doing and saying the above but would be very grateful if you could clarify this.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #130 on: November 11, 2012, 03:10:20 PM »


Adam and Schleed are posting here. Binty wanted away from every kind of forum, AFAIK. Trigger is around, every now and then, but was never a particularly frequent poster. Eris and quite a few of the younger folks got along swimmingly, I seem to remember, as did Penty and mostly everyone.


I'm not talking about the reasons for anyone leaving. They all had their own reasons. Im saying that the site doesnt work as well without them, and that they have never been replaced.

Did you notice the part where I pointed out that several of them are still posting? When looking back at the number of posts per month, the coincide with drama, a lot of which wasn't too pretty and certainly not "vibrant".

Quote
Quote
Unless your main driving force here is generating drama, I don't understand your point at all.

The point of that post was to answer Les' question. My overall point is that this site worked well when there was a good mix of old and young. Now that there is no real mix, I dont feel that the site works anywhere near as well.

Without being able to define what comprises "old" or "young", so the assumption is meaningless, IMHO. I'm more inclined to believe that new drama is what really feeds the place. A lot of the later half of last year's posts were about drama and some fairly ugly incidents, and incidentally, the post count went up.

Or take a look further back, when Meadow was generating drama. The post count went up.

Quote
Quote
You don't have the answers but still feel there is little to attract younger members? Do you know what younger members would like? Do you know what younger members WOULDN'T like?

I know what I would like, and I know what I dont like.
I do believe that most young people would like a site with other young people on it.

Young as in "younger than 30" or "young at heart"? And if the latter, what does that mean? What would you like them to post about?

Quote
Quote
I'm confused. I2 doesn't have what you want, yet you don't know what you want or what others in your age group want? Yours seems like a very confused generation, tbh.

I know what I want. I have no idea how to achieve it though.



Quote
Me, I'm content with the pub-like atmosphere we do have, and quite a few of the other grumpies seem to accept it, too. True, not every young folk is allowed into a pub, but then again, that is why they invented latte houses and placed McDonald's restaurants in every corner.

OK, I like the word "grumpies." :laugh: That is probably more accurate than "oldies," so I'll use that word instead.

Ive also been thinking of a pub as a good analogy too, so.
In the best pubs, you have a good mix of regulars who different people of different ages. In the past, this place was like a good pub. I would come in, speak to my "grumpy" mates, have a few shots with them, and then go and hang out with the youngsters at the slot machines. If things got a bit dull, I could still shoot some pool with my "grumpy" mates.
Nowadays, I can still come to the pub and meet my "grumpy" mates, but theres no real group of youngsters to create a good balance.


Quote
CBC's declining posting average is a bigger factor, tbh

In January to March 2011, there was generally between 330 and 800 new posts per day, with it exceeding 1000 once. Over the last three months, there has generally been between 69 and 240 new posts per day, with it getting into the 300s a few times. CBC currently has a posting average of 36.6 posts per day. She appears to still be posting regularly, so it seems unlikely that any drop in her posting would have amounted to more than 20 fewer posts per day on the forum.
Also, the "new posts" stat is only one stat. The "most online" stat, which shows how many members have been online each day has dropped by roughly a third in the same timescale.

You do realise that CBC's real post count is lower than that, it's just that it's dropping? Or that my post count is similarly lower than a year or 18 months ago (when it went up because of, you guessed it, drama)?

There will be drama again. This thread, for example, is already boosting the stats, which I knew almost as soon as I first read MLA's first post in it.

So no, I very much doubt the site is dying. It takes more than repeating the notion as a mantra.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #131 on: November 11, 2012, 03:12:18 PM »
In 2008 there appears to have been a time during the second half of the year when things werent going great. There was often only around 12 members online per day, although they seemed to do a lot of posting. Possibly down Callandale.

Calandale caused several people to leave and at that time I really thought the site might not survive. People were sick and tired of the constant bullshit.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline 'Butterflies'

  • Mastermind of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • Karma: 625
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #132 on: November 11, 2012, 03:15:48 PM »
lol Les have you not been reading what Butterflies said?

She's not talking about biologica/legal age

Seems to me she was. Certainly she has not qualified it in any other way.

The "young at heart" bullshit is, well, bullshit. Seems to me it's simply something you excuse yourself with when forming a clique consisting of people you happen to like.

Unless you actually have defined what the youth demographic group want to see here and I just missed it.

Im not talking about biological age.

You want "young" people to post here, mixed with the "old". As you haven't bothered to define either, I have to go with what the words actually mean. But feel free to tell the readership what you actually mean.

Unless it is what I said, that you use the terms loosely to define a clique consisting of people you like.

MLA created a thread where he posted 4 graphs, highlighting how much less active the site now was. He also labeled the thread "A retrospective." It appeared that he was looking for people to discuss the situation, and to look at why the site is faring so badly these days.

As someone who was a very active member of the site, but who now feels it has lost its way, I thought I was in a good position to explain why the site has lost its appeal to me.
I politely gave my opinions on the matter, and now, because yourself, and Les disagree with my opinions, you have spent the next 6 pages hassling me about my opinion.

This is exactly the kind of behavior that I was alluding to in my first couple of posts on this subject. It feels like nobody is allowed to voice an opinion that you and Les disagree with. If I have an opinion that you guys dislike, you appear to just want to hound, and hound away, pushing me to explain every word of what I've said.

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #133 on: November 11, 2012, 03:21:35 PM »
lol Les have you not been reading what Butterflies said?

She's not talking about biologica/legal age

Seems to me she was. Certainly she has not qualified it in any other way.

The "young at heart" bullshit is, well, bullshit. Seems to me it's simply something you excuse yourself with when forming a clique consisting of people you happen to like.

Unless you actually have defined what the youth demographic group want to see here and I just missed it.

Im not talking about biological age.

You want "young" people to post here, mixed with the "old". As you haven't bothered to define either, I have to go with what the words actually mean. But feel free to tell the readership what you actually mean.

Unless it is what I said, that you use the terms loosely to define a clique consisting of people you like.

MLA created a thread where he posted 4 graphs, highlighting how much less active the site now was. He also labeled the thread "A retrospective." It appeared that he was looking for people to discuss the situation, and to look at why the site is faring so badly these days.

As someone who was a very active member of the site, but who now feels it has lost its way, I thought I was in a good position to explain why the site has lost its appeal to me.
I politely gave my opinions on the matter, and now, because yourself, and Les disagree with my opinions, you have spent the next 6 pages hassling me about my opinion.

This is exactly the kind of behavior that I was alluding to in my first couple of posts on this subject. It feels like nobody is allowed to voice an opinion that you and Les disagree with. If I have an opinion that you guys dislike, you appear to just want to hound, and hound away, pushing me to explain every word of what I've said.

If you don't make yourself understood then it is no good for members to ask for clarification? If asking questions is clarification and that debtaing ideas and points of view is not good then what do you propose as an alternative?
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap

Offline 'Butterflies'

  • Mastermind of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • Karma: 625
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2012 - a retrospective
« Reply #134 on: November 11, 2012, 03:25:43 PM »
Just a few things and at risk of repeating myself over and over, I think I would like to have this clarified.

If you are not talking  young or old in biological terms then what is the term you are associating with young and old?
If it is emotional or mental, then what is your term of reference? How do you measure against their actual age and their (emotional/mental?) age? How do you measure them up against others? What aspects of them do you configure their "age" against (apart from how they type on a keyboard)?

These are serious questions because of this.

There was a time that you and Adam and Squid in particular decided to go to extreme lengths to drive a propaganda campaign here about this place being crap, that there were too many older people, that the older people were no good and the site was failing, that the older people were part of a clique and so on. The answer was to encourage everyone who was young (and cool) to leave here and go to Spasticity and later to Zomgreloaded). When you started getting back up early in the piece by Scrap and a couple of the others who were older you all welcomed them in and amended earlier comments to allow young at heart or some such.
The sites did not do so well. The young clique broke down a bit. (Eris and Bint had a falling out and Squiddy and Scrap stopped posting on forums, etc). Now with the MLA starting this thread showing a drop in activity, I see you dragging up dead and buried ideologies. Ones that died a well deserved death back then.

I see you making overtures as to vibrance and young people here. One does not equate to the other so why are you making these associations?

Why are you suggesting that the place is dying when it has mant times in the last 6 or so years had times of similar levels or worse inactivity and never died? What is the purpose in stating it is dying?

Why are you inferring that the young people left because of the old or because of the culture?

Are you really just saying that you would like more people that you like here and that you would call them "young"?

I do not understand why you are doing and saying the above but would be very grateful if you could clarify this.

There's no need to play dumb Les. You know Im not suggesting that young people are leaving because of the grumpies. Im suggesting that some of the younger people are leaving, or not sticking around, because there are so few people of their own age, who they might actually want to hang out with.
There is a big difference between what Im saying, and the opinions that you are trying your hardest to ascribe to me.