PD of PDMA

[Grisu]

Are you suggesting traffic isn't less than it was, say, 5 years ago?
If you quickly load OT from long ago, it is very clear there were a lot more posts/threads per day than there are now. That is fact.

Which is not what I claimed at all. What I claimed was that traffic slowed before the split and there was no clear difference between traffic in the months before and after the split. What I contested was the implication that traffic slowed due to the split; even if it had any impact on traffic it certainly wasn't the main reason for the decline.

 

[Tsoate]

If you had to, what would you pin the decline on?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Perhaps the overall dip in traffic on the site because of the time since the last major Civ release? Some significant portion of the OT traffic comes from members checking up on the game fora, and then spending a little time in the OT fora. All the traffic at CFC is influence by the Civ game release cycles.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And you cannot forget that as members age, their life changes and for some posting in OT becomes less important with jobs, new jobs, families, college, etc.

 

[The_J]

Overall site traffic did certainly not change to due that.



(from the official alexa ranking, http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/civfanatics.com#trafficstats ).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Overall site traffic did certainly not change to due that.



(from the official alexa ranking, http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/civfanatics.com#trafficstats ).

To which one - Civ V or that we're all getting older?

 

[The_J]

Originally meant the split, but since the overall traffic did not decline in the last 2 years, it can as well be applied to everything.

(unrelated: Sometimes strange to see how high we rank ^^; sites like unicef.org or energy.gov rank behind us in overall traffic stats)

 

[Tsoate]

Ok, so if "overall traffic" didn't decline, why did it in OT.

Also, Birdjaguar, with a forum like this, with new iterations of the game being released, surely new players are attracted to refresh the site?

 

[azzaman333]

Ok, so if "overall traffic" didn't decline, why did it in OT.

Also, Birdjaguar, with a forum like this, with new iterations of the game being released, surely new players are attracted to refresh the site?

Because the numbers in OT had steadily been declining for years before the split anyway. For whatever reason, Civ5 didn't bring anywhere near the numbers into OT compared to Civ4.

 

[peter grimes]

Because the numbers in OT had steadily been declining for years before the split anyway. For whatever reason, Civ5 didn't bring anywhere near the numbers into OT compared to Civ4.

Because only children play civ5

I jest, of course.

Back On-Topic:
Is there a tool or Bot that can scrape the daily thread starts or posts per day by unique users in selected sub-forums?

It would be very interesting to see those sorts of numbers for the old OT compared to post-schism.

 

[The_J]

Could probably be done.
Guess if somebody goes through the vb addons, then there might be something, but not necessarily for this forum version, or something which you might want to install (technical stuff, and so on).

Ok, so if "overall traffic" didn't decline, why did it in OT.

Seasonal changes.
New iterations also only bring in new people after some time.
I think a couple of very active and misbehaving members have decided to either leave or decrease their activity due to a dooming PB, too. And some decided to get themselves banned with their behaviour.
And probably a couple of factors more, which we can't estimate. Who knows?

 

[Tsoate]

I think a couple of very active and misbehaving members have decided to either leave or decrease their activity due to a dooming PB, too. And some decided to get themselves banned with their behaviour.

Curious it could be thought that killing off active members of the community would result in a dooming of OT? But I am sure all the same, those banned deserved it. What price is moderator time for a flatlining OT?

 

[The_J]

It's all a tradeoff between how much someone contributes in contrast to how much he/she disturbs. And it's not so easy to disturb here that much that you get a PB, as plenty of members in every part of the forum still show.
This can also not be major factor, since only a few people get a permabann each year.
The major factors are probably elsewhere.

 

[Camikaze]

Curious it could be thought that killing off active members of the community would result in a dooming of OT? But I am sure all the same, those banned deserved it. What price is moderator time for a flatlining OT?

The point may speak to the fact that activity as a measure in itself may be misleading, when it encompasses negative and positive activity. The PB of a member may result in a reduction in activity in OT, but then such loss is of activity that we don't necessarily want. Similarly, looking at activity levels in OT does not actually tell us whether the forum has improved or declined. It may be that OT is worse now partially due to lower activity, but perhaps it has simply shed vitriol and useless spam. I think you'd find the former is the preferred view of many, but traffic numbers don't tell us this. So it'd seem more relevant to consider the present tone/quality of discussion in determining whether things are better or worse.

 

[Tsoate]

Given we have banner adverts across the top, I would guess volume is more relevant than quality for CFC on the biggest scale.

A active forum is a healthy forum.

 

[Camikaze]

Does an active but poor quality OT drive posters away from CFC, or does a higher quality but less active OT make CFC a more welcoming environment? Even if we are to assume that activity is all that we're interested in (and it isn't), then OT activity is only a portion of that. If a less active but higher quality OT were to improve the site such as to increase site wide activity, then a less active OT would be better for CFC activity levels.

 

[Takhisis]

@Camikaze: doesn't quality-v.-quantity form a part of the distinction between the Chamber and the Tavern?

Perhaps the overall dip in traffic on the site because of the time since the last major Civ release? Some significant portion of the OT traffic comes from members checking up on the game fora, and then spending a little time in the OT fora. All the traffic at CFC is influence by the Civ game release cycles.

Maybe thinking of it the other way around would help: there is a steady core of posters here, some people come, some people go, and occasionally we get waves of incomers washing over us as a consequence of the release of a new game.

Seasonal changes.
New iterations also only bring in new people after some time.
I think a couple of very active and misbehaving members have decided to either leave or decrease their activity due to a dooming PB, too. And some decided to get themselves banned with their behaviour.
And probably a couple of factors more, which we can't estimate. Who knows?

'Decided to get themselves banned'? There're many situations in which the rules -or the way in which they are enforced- are very unclear, so it's not as if people set out to get infracted or banned. It's totally not the same as asking for a voluntary ban as some people do.

Curious it could be thought that killing off active members of the community would result in a dooming of OT? But I am sure all the same, those banned deserved it. What price is moderator time for a flatlining OT?

Not all those banned necessarily deserved it, but to discuss that would be PDMA.

…right? Because, well, we're discussing that… um…

 

[Camikaze]

We make sure PBs don't come as a surprise (there has been someone that seemed genuinely surprised, but this is simply because they completely ignored the many warnings we'd given that a PB was approaching; it's as if they hadn't read their PMs). It's understandable that a regular ban might, if someone hasn't had much exposure to the rules before (though those sorts of people are less like to get a ban). But it would be stretching things very far to suggest that PBed members are unaware of the consequences of their actions, or unaware of the behaviour which will bring those consequences about.

Quantity v quality does appear to be part of the distinction between the Chamber and the Tavern, but that's not necessarily by design. We didn't exactly intend for it to be as dead as it is, even if we considered it might have a slower pace.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I don't remember many people getting banned at all, though of course, since bannings are not announced in any way, it's hard to notice a banning. Regarding OT, I know of only three people getting banned from it. I wouldn't say that it's a particularly banhammer-prone place at all - though the unannounced nature of bannings may contribute to my impression.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Banning used to be a lot scarier, back in Civ3 times.

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Every bit of penalty, banning, PCR, warning, ect, results in a us taking a part of your soul. When 1024 bytes of your soul have been taken, you become a rodwraith, totally subject to the will of the holder of the master banning rod.

Originally posted by King of Camelot and edited by Lefty Scaevola

Lord of the Banning Rods
Three Rods for the SMAC Mods under alien sky, Seven for the Civ2 Mods in their halls of old,
Nine for the Civ3 Mods doomed to cry, One for the the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Civfanatics where the Shadows lie.
One Rod to rule them all, One Rod to find them, One Rod to ban them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Civfanatics where Shadows lie