Truth In Numbers

[IAAM Radio]

Ever read posts on milestones like, "I have 100 posts, 1,000 topics, 3,000 members...>"


What does it all mean?

All too often you read the 500, 1000, etc and I for one will take a peak every so often to see who made the posts or whom the members really are. Having 1,000 posts by members and not staff is very different than having 1,000 posts where 800 of them were made by the staff i.e. 1 to 5 people. I saw a post the other day claiming 80,000 posts with only 221 members. I had to look and it turned out 90% of those posts were made by 3 people. Those are three very dedicated people but the number itself is diluted.

I just bought phpBBC and it boasts of 83,000 posts, well 90% of that number is also from the original owners and two generations after. This means that member posts were/are very low. 83,000 sure looks impressive but reality is, it's not impressive at all when you look and see who made them.

After I bought the site I told the staff there is no more post requirements for the team. Seems the previous owners had a very stringent post requirement up to 50 posts per day per team member. When you have 5 people on staff that builds up fast and sadly member posts got buried in the staff posts.

People equate a raw number to success but it's what makes up that number that is the real data point. I read another post on a site, something to the effect well my little board gets 30 posts per day and seems to be doing far better than that big board at 60 posts per day. I thought, let's take a look. Of that 30 posts 20 of them were from staff and 10 were from members. Again, truth in numbers.

Just my perspective.

 

[GAF]

I agree with what you are saying here. Most forums with milestones are mostly only staff posting the majority.

 

[D]

Isn't that a good thing? There has been times where I wanted to kill all of my staff members for not posting or participating around the forums. Atleast if a nice amount of posts are from staff members then you know the forum is going places because you have dedicated staff there. New forums that hit 1,000 posts ect; are sure as hell not going to have an active userbase making those posts, yet the staff members are continuing to add new content daily which again is a good thing because new users will have something to talk about.

Telling staff not to post is the worst idea ever, Now nobody is going to post on the forum because there are no new posts for anybody to participate in at all.

Staff participating and contributing around forums are one of the key factors for healthy growth, if the staff are not motivated to post then members will see that and not post either.

Staff lead the way.

 

[GAF]

Yeah. maybe staff should post loads at the start but surely you need the members to be posting actively up there too. Because then you know it is not just all staff on the forums posting. If it is only staff posting, it will do no good because members want to talk with other members.

 

[D]

Isn't a staff member counted as a member? they are real people with real opinions you know 😛

But again, if activity is low on a forum (New or old) then staff need to step in and get things going again, which means posting insane amounts of topics and posts. You can't leave everything up to members... if you and the staff team are not motivated then your members won't be either.

The full lifecycle of any forum requires participation around the forums by staff members to keep things moving, keeping the members motivated and uplholding staff presence within the community.

 

[GAF]

I see what you mean but there should be more members than staff members. Then the members should be more actively posting than staff otherwise the forum will just become a staff only sort of forum.

 

[D]

Yeah I agree there, there definatley should be more members than staff. But they are not going to actively post if the staff are not posting, staff create the base of the forum for members to contribute ontop of and continue to maintain their presence throughout the life of the forum.

IMO staff should always be posting on any forum, if the staff don't post then the members wont. Its a 2 way thing.

Thats just what I have seen and learnt from my time as a forum owner anyways.

 

[Medora]

If I correctly understand, Cfotoceo takes issue not so much with the massive amount of posting by staff per se, but that when the posts by staff combined make up the overwhelming majority of the post count, it is deception and exaggeration for staff to promote the forum as an active community. Of course, you can define community as even a few guys on staff. However, everyone knows that what is being implied is that the community is not simply the staff; it is a notable group of people surrounding the staff, as well.

After I bought the site I told the staff there is no more post requirements for the team. Seems the previous owners had a very stringent post requirement up to 50 posts per day per team member. When you have 5 people on staff that builds up fast and sadly member posts got buried in the staff posts.

Was it 50 per day? I do not remember the exact number, but when I was a moderator the moderator team leader contacted me twice about my low post rate. Of course, I made sure the owner at the time and the moderator team leader were fine with my post rate before I accepted the job, so the moderator team leader pointed out that he remembered the agreement and was simply telling me what he told every other staff member. In short, I was the exception, since the owner thought my post "quality" made up for quantity.

I felt out of place as a staff member at phpBB Communities, as everyone else had a post count in the low to mid thousands, while I remained in the low hundreds. Sure, I could have posted a lot more, but I would not post for the sake of posting; I must feel compelled to post, and that does not often happen.

 

[IAAM Radio]

All good points and I am not saying staff should not post. I simply removed a mandatory daily post requirement for the staff. Yes, staff are members and thus they should post but for my team they post on their own so the the staff to member post count ratio is not skewed.

What we often see in the announcements are skewed post count numbers. When your board has for example 250 members and you have 3 to 5 staff members, the bulk of the posts by that time should be from members and not staff.

Staff should surf the site, see if there are posts and or topics worthy of keeping active and post to stimulate activity. I for one am not impressed with announcements of 10,000 posts with a member base of 300 to 400 and 80 to 90% are from staff. There are many sites like that right now and that is a misrepresentation of member activity not counting the staff.

Adding to this discussion are exaggerated claims to questions like, :How much does your site earn"? I love it when I see posts that boast of $500 to $1,500 per month. It is very easy to check that for truth. Their are many sites that have Google Analytic tools you can run to see if the unique visitor rate is high. If it is, then those click ads might be paying off. When you visit such boards if the url is even shared (ever notice such boasts often do not come with a url) visit and notice what? Where is the money being made, it's got a Google ad sense and a few inline ads. Some may have For Pay services but the spots are empty.

I'm not saying there are not money makers out there, but I will tell you, those that are and no offenses most of them would not be on sites like phpBBC or FP. The audience is different, the market segment is not for those who are here in most cases. Yes, there are a few that advertise at promo sites like this and phpBBC but they are truly rare i.e. the ones who have the truth in their numbers.

My point is do not take numbers as absolute. Look into the bold claims and see for yourself.

 

[Nebulous]

Who cares who made the majority of the posts on a forum as long as the people involved with the forum are enjoying themselves. Its a hobby not serious business.

 

[IAAM Radio]

Theezy,

Part of what you say is correct, i.e. have fun! However, to some it's a business see the post right above yours. To make it easier here it is:

"Adding to this discussion are exaggerated claims to questions like, "How much does your site earn"? I love it when I see posts that boast of $500 to $1,500 per month. It is very easy to check that for truth. Their are many sites that have Google Analytic tools you can run to see if the unique visitor rate is high. If it is, then those click ads might be paying off. When you visit such boards if the url is even shared (ever notice such boasts often do not come with a url) visit and notice what? Where is the money being made, it's got a Google ad sense and a few inline ads. Some may have For Pay services but the spots are empty.

I'm not saying there are not money makers out there, but I will tell you, those that are and no offenses most of them would not be on sites like phpBBC or FP. The audience is different, the market segment is not for those who are here in most cases. Yes, there are a few that advertise at promo sites like this and phpBBC but they are truly rare i.e. the ones who have the truth in their numbers.

My point is do not take numbers as absolute. Look into the bold claims and see for yourself."

 

[Hissae2]

All my staff are dedicated and choose to post the amount they do. I don't force them to post. They were chosen as staff members because they are most active and would do the best job. Staff should have the most posts because they should be the one's creating new topics etc.

 

[IAAM Radio]

"Staff Should Have the Most Posts"

I respect your perview but I do not agree. Members should have the most posts over time. In the young stages of a forum, staff will have the most posts but that should decrease at an increasing rate as your member base and activity grows.

 

[Bluezone777]

It should start out with staff having the most posts but an active community that's doing well should start seeing members slowly overtake the staff and eventually be a place where it's all pretty even as far as contributions to the forum go.

 

[IAAM Radio]

It should start out with staff having the most posts but an active community that's doing well should start seeing members slowly overtake the staff and eventually be a place where it's all pretty even as far as contributions to the forum go.

I think we have all said the same thing over and over now. LoL! :rofl:

 

[toetapping]

At one stage I had 1,000 members but 90% were not posting. I cut it back to 80 and found it looked better for prospective new members not so bare and am finding it has become much more active.

You definitely can't go by posts, members, topics. I think you should go by activity. If any forum is active every day that is what impresses me when hunting.

 

[IAAM Radio]

At one stage I had 1,000 members but 90% were not posting. I cut it back to 80 and found it looked better for prospective new members not so bare and am finding it has become much more active.

You definitely can't go by posts, members, topics. I think you should go by activity. If any forum is active every day that is what impresses me when hunting.

Well Said!

 

[Rich Edmonds]

I don't believe it particularly matters should the post contribution be spread among numbers. Staff could enjoy the forum just as much as the members so there would be a strong contribution from that person also. Of course, if barely any registered accounts have more than 10 posts, yet the staff have a few thousand, then there's a slight problem with keeping activity up across the board.

 

[death180]

Ever read posts on milestones like, "I have 100 posts, 1,000 topics, 3,000 members...>"


What does it all mean?

All too often you read the 500, 1000, etc and I for one will take a peak every so often to see who made the posts or whom the members really are. Having 1,000 posts by members and not staff is very different than having 1,000 posts where 800 of them were made by the staff i.e. 1 to 5 people. I saw a post the other day claiming 80,000 posts with only 221 members. I had to look and it turned out 90% of those posts were made by 3 people. Those are three very dedicated people but the number itself is diluted.

I just bought phpBBC and it boasts of 83,000 posts, well 90% of that number is also from the original owners and two generations after. This means that member posts were/are very low. 83,000 sure looks impressive but reality is, it's not impressive at all when you look and see who made them.

After I bought the site I told the staff there is no more post requirements for the team. Seems the previous owners had a very stringent post requirement up to 50 posts per day per team member. When you have 5 people on staff that builds up fast and sadly member posts got buried in the staff posts.

People equate a raw number to success but it's what makes up that number that is the real data point. I read another post on a site, something to the effect well my little board gets 30 posts per day and seems to be doing far better than that big board at 60 posts per day. I thought, let's take a look. Of that 30 posts 20 of them were from staff and 10 were from members. Again, truth in numbers.

Just my perspective.

Couldn't have said it better myself, which is why I hate staff post requirements. And which is why I always found phpBBC a bit 'dead' all of the time.

 

[IAAM Radio]

Need to clarify, promo forums are not primarily social sites, they are ad sites so I for one would not expect 1,000 posts per week, we have 500 to 800 per month and that is about right for an ad site like ours. We like other promo sites offer off topic areas but you do not want that to be the dominate section of such a site.

There are always lurkers, i.e. members that come but just hang on the site for hours with no post which is actually not bad given it’s a visit.... This happens on all sites.

"Dead" is relative, meaning it all depends on what genre your board is about.