Large Stats vs Misleading Reviews

[Acorn]

And yet, my forum's still got areas it could really use shaping up in XD Thanks for the compliment though. now to get those folks at big boards to link me! XD Warning folks: I've been in their queue for over 3 months! They don't exactly run a tight ship!

I always thought of forum reviews here as being geared to forums that just got started, and assessing whether they are well set up and poised to succeed. Once they have 1000000000 posts or whatever, they won't have need for a review cause whatever they're doing, is obviously working.

But it's a service here that's run by volunteers. So, everyone's idea of a gold standard will differ. Maybe the issue is whether or not there should be some gold standard posted up in the reviews board as a guideline. But you might then run the risk of losing a wider variety of opinions.

...don't mind me. It's 2:30 AM and I'm up way past bedtime XD

 

[David]

It's hard to define successful. If that reviewer, or just anyone making a comment, doesn't own a successful forum, or is an active member on a few of them, then they shouldn't use their experience to review a forum, or make a comment.

Yes, most forums reviewed are starting off and that's a great thing to receive feedback. But once they get that high score, they tend to steer off, and start to experiment hence making that review invalid.

Yes, its definitely volunteers, and not once did I say they were doing a bad job. I am saying that the reviews are really just too lenient, and don't give strong enough, brutal criticism which is essential in succeeding. If no one can point that out to you then you will think you're doing everything right, you see your forum with 10k posts and you think you've got the biggest forum ever. That can happen, and I've seen a few people brag about that. 🙁

 

[Justin]

No no. I'm saying there are misconceptions and inaccuracies in reviewing people's forums, and saying that 10k posts is a lot when in the foruming world, it isn't. Then people believe in that and just brag about it saying things in the forums like "my forum has 3k posts, mine has 5k, mine has 10k etc." Though it may be a personal achievement, it isn't that much when you compare to the top 2250 and possibly the top 10 000 forums.

On reviews, they do not count based on how many posts you have just there, reviews consider when you opened to be a major factor in your post count review. Hence why the field is there 😉 They review based on the time you have been opened and posts you have received, not posts you have compared to the internet. It is a completely different idea.

 

[Antarctic]

I don't like the reviews on forums anyway, no offense to the reviews, but most of them have never run an active forum, and have no ideas on how to make a forum active or run one.

 

[David]

So if I make a forum, get 100 people to make 10 000 posts (but its not officially open yet), and then later, open it, request a review, the reviewer would say that the forum has been open for 2 days and has gained 10k posts ??? That wouldn't be fair or correct.

Antarctic, that's a correct point. Thanks.

 

[Justin]

That would be an unfair advantage there DD. As you are keeping secret information from the reviewer. That is like leaving out part of the story in a police report. Reviewers have no control over what you do before the review, or after. They just call it as they see it. It would be unfair and probably untrue to get 10000 posts in two days. Most reviewers may pick up on this though, seeing as posts are date marked 😉

 

[fantanoice]

Saying that a forum with a hundred thousand posts is small because Gaia Online has nearly two billion is like saying that someone who makes a hundred thousand dollars per year is poor because Meredith Vieira makes ten million dollars per year.

^ This.

The forums on Big Boards are the 'creme of the crop' in terms of activity. However, considering most forums don't even get past 10,000, I think it is fair to say that a forum with a 10,000 isn't doing 'too badly'. I do agree that it isn't much of an achievement, but every forum has to start somewhere and activity tends to increase at an exponential rate (more members, daily posts increase... etc)...

However, although you could debate that we're competing with these 'big boards', we're not really because there is no competition. :shrug: Those forums are professionally run and continue because they continue to get revenue. A lot of the members here aren't gunning for that and are running their forums for fun, not money. A lot of them don't have the revenue to even think of competing with them. They also don't utilise our resources.

Not to mention reviews are supposed to help and encourage, not to disappoint and upset. I mean, reviewers could mention that you're competing with forums that have those kind of stats, but 10,000 posts is generally a good start.

If you want me to go Maths-ish, I will. Let's say that forums are reviewed on a curve... *gets shot*. (Eeeeh, I may elaborate on that later if I can be bothered...)

But I digress... :/

 

[David]

However, I see too many times a forum has gained x number of posts and members, then request a review and claim to to be opened on x date. Since you now have active members, people will continue to post, and that will affect the validity of the review/comment made.

FYI, I don't want to aim this at "reviewers". I said people who review ie. criticise, so not just forum reviewers at promotion forums.

But on topic, Snobo once told me via PM that he reviews solely from a visitor's perspective. If a visitor doesn't know that opening date then you can't review using the "posts compared to opening date" reasoning. The only way is to have an active, at least 75k posts to have a respectable review and a valid review. A guest seeing a forum with 75k posts will see it as better than a forum that has just opened and gained 10k posts in a week. That is what people don't realize and that's why its sad seeing people all to happy about what a great review they got.

@fanta, again I would respect your forum and I would compare your's with larger forums as it is a respectable total.

 

[Justin]

I mean on the forum, when you view a post, it says "Less than a minute ago" or "February 22". That is a way to tell 😉

 

[David]

I mean on the forum, when you view a post, it says "Less than a minute ago" or "February 22". That is a way to tell 😉

Which guest/visitor is going to thoroughly analyze that? Its about 5-20 seconds before a visitor hits the back button or clicks the register button.

 

[Justin]

If someone were to review the site. Reviewers go through posts. It is easily marked too, the first thing on each post..

 

[David]

If someone were to review the site. Reviewers go through posts. It is easily marked too, the first thing on each post..

No. :shake: I never said reviewer in my previous statement, I said guest. As a guest, would you just randomly analyze the post's date?

 

[Deleted member 1609]

You have to realize, DotDavid, that each reviewer does his reviews a little differently.

I know that when I am looking at a forum that I'm considering joining, I always look at how many posts they have and how long they've been open.

 

[fantanoice]

@fanta, again I would respect your forum and I would compare your's with larger forums as it is a respectable total.

Well, I wasn't really referring to my forum as I know there are much bigger general discussion forums around (especially ones that didn't spend 60% of their life as a Mario Kart forum).

I was just giving my opinion. :S I mean, a lot of guests wouldn't expect a forum to have millions of posts/members and the reviewers can be considered guests. Some guests don't even want to become members of forums with millions of members/posts. I (personally) prefer smaller communities over larger ones because on larger ones they're usually unnecessarily strict with their rules and you can hardly ever get a word in because there's so many people. Others may feel differently. :shrug:

But I guess there's still got to be that balance where you can fair, but at least give the understanding of the competition.

 

[David]

You have to realize, DotDavid, that each reviewer does his reviews a little differently.

I know that when I am looking at a forum that I'm considering joining, I always look at how many posts they have and how long they've been open.

No!!!!!!!! I have repeatedly said that I am not talking about reviewers like the ones on FP:

I was looking through past reviews, and see that people (not saying the reviewers; just a general comment) consider 10,000 posts as large and 300 members as large as well.

People in this community see 10k as large, which is reinforced in reviews so they don't see a bigger picture.

@fantanoice, that is a valid comment, probably the most valid so far as you are taking it from a guests point of view, not a reviewer.

 

[Mike]

At the end of the day I think it all comes down to what the Administrator wants his forum to become, If he isn't expecting to get a lot of members or posts then 1000 members and 10k Posts is a lot for him - So of course he will be happy with those statistics, Yes on the bigger picture these stats are nothing compared to plenty of other forums, But in comparison to the expectation of the owner, they are good statistics 🙂

At the end of the day these statistics are more important than later ones, I mean an owner of a forum will millions of posts is hardly going to care too much about his statistics. But the smaller statistics do help with getting to the forum to where Gaia etc all are, One step at a time ey?

As for your theory on no forum being able to achieve 85 on reviews, I wholeheartedly Disagree, I personally Believe every Forum has slightly different criteria, and needs to be reviewed differently. We at FP are here to help both smaller and good sized forums, Until they reach the stage where their SEO etc is more than enough to keep members flocking in, so comparing the site's advertised here to huge forums is rather odd.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

I don't like the reviews on forums anyway, no offense to the reviews, but most of them have never run an active forum, and have no ideas on how to make a forum active or run one.

I agree.

 

[Midnight]

The way I did reviews, the base statistics are factored in with the "First Impressions" part of the review. The posts per day statistic was used for the purposes of the "Activity" part of the review.

Also, dotDavid, you have to consider the fact that the forums on BigBoards actually constitute a very small percentage of the forums on the internet. A hundred thousand posts is actually quite large. In fact, if you look on phpBB.com, the owner of Gaia Online said that he considers a forum with 250,000 posts to be a large forum.

Saying that a forum with a hundred thousand posts is small because Gaia Online has nearly two billion is like saying that someone who makes a hundred thousand dollars per year is poor because Meredith Vieira makes ten million dollars per year.

+2 rep..

Exactly.

 

[Midnight]

I don't like the reviews on forums anyway, no offense to the reviews, but most of them have never run an active forum, and have no ideas on how to make a forum active or run one.

do you honestly think review for FREE is easy? Other reviewers including me give up there own time to help other forum by giving reviews and no one should be criticized for trying to do there bit..

(Sorry for double post mods!)

 

[Watch Me Sink]

I don't like the reviews on forums anyway, no offense to the reviews, but most of them have never run an active forum, and have no ideas on how to make a forum active or run one.

do you honestly think review for FREE is easy? Other reviewers including me give up there own time to help other forum by giving reviews and no one should be criticized for trying to do there bit..

(Sorry for double post mods!)

Sure, but you still didn't disprove his point, nor did you say anything relating to his point. I agree that reviews are hard, but most reviews don't have a large forum or website. Thus some of the advice that they give isn't very valid.