19 Dec 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo other people don't create threads that get loads of posts.
Footnote Two: Here's a summary of the activity volumes of your own threads on this forum which have received
one hundred (100) or more posts August 26 [page 16] to December 18, 2015 (during the past 114 days):
FMF = [b]0 threads
Kegge = 0 threads
Trev33 = 0 threads
orangutan = 0 threads
Comment: With thi ...[text shortened]... ply to drewnogal in a few days, I'll respond to your criticisms of my threads on this forum. ~GB[/b]
In my case, probably because I don't post that much - so any threads I do create don't go down the self fuelling route (compare my 75ish posts in the last 90 days to your 1300+).
You post a lot in the threads you start - frequently reposting your first post and often replying to questions with a copy of an earlier post.
You also have a knack for starting the controversial type of thread that gets a fair bit of flack.
Quantity. Well done.
Quality ... that's subjective.
Like I say, no one can deny that you energise the forums here - it's my personal opinion that your brand of energy (copy paste, copy paste, list, list - avoid questions) isn't particularly interesting.
Start a blog Grampy Bobby. Your fans will still get the bobby hit and your detractors won't have to worry.
Doesn't everyone win that way?
Originally posted by KewpieMaybe so, Kewpie; however, the near and longer term financial viability of Red Hot Pawn as a competitive market entry (as an online correspondence chess site with public forums) requires sustained subscription and advertising revenues. Those websites which have historically satisfied both chess move and public forum post volume criteria most effectively will benefit from advertisers' contract renewal decisions in 2016 and beyond. You and I and other active public forum contributors may have our personal soft ball preferences regarding nice to have thread content, architecture and design considerations. Russ has been playing pragmatic hard ball with must have revenue delivery requirements since February 21, 2001, and will continue to face into this highly competitive market reality in 2016 and beyond. "Word Association" and related threads on this forum have categorically proven themselves to be "an indicator of interest" and more significantly as having the potential to deliver not merely wheelbarrows but truckloads of post volume in recent years. As loyal senior members, shouldn't we view the daily and annual scenes from the site's sole proprietor's perspective? Regards, GB
I'm inclined to think that long forum threads are less an indicator of interest and more an indicator of boredom, because they're mostly just long lists. For example, the hugely popular Word Association thread, now in its second or third incarnation, has no content whatever.
19 Dec 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou are not Russ.
Maybe so, Kewpie; however, the near and longer term financial viability of Red Hot Pawn as a competitive market entry (as an online correspondence chess site with public forums) requires sustained subscription and advertising revenues. Those websites which have historically satisfied both chess move and public forum post volume criteria most effectively ...[text shortened]... t we view the daily and annual scenes from the site's sole proprietor's perspective? Regards, GB
I would have thought the number of people who keep the forums going is absolutely miniscule compared to the number of people who play chess at RHP. The forums are indeed the "heart" of the community that is created by the forums but it is just a self-perpetuating sideshow, and its magnitude - or lack of it - probably has almost nothing to do with the financial success of RHP as a chess web site.
19 Dec 15
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERI suppose "their thumbs" will eventually find new homes. Why? Because everybody and every place and every thing has to be somewhere.
sad news, you have been great in the short time i have known you
a question for you.
what will they do with their thumbs now?
19 Dec 15
1 edit
Originally posted by orangutanOriginally posted by orangutan
So other people don't create threads that get loads of posts.
In my case, probably because I don't post that much - so any threads I do create don't go down the self fuelling route (compare my 75ish posts in the last 90 days to your 1300+).
You post a lot in the threads you start - frequently reposting your first post and often replying to questions ...[text shortened]... ill still get the bobby hit and your detractors won't have to worry.
Doesn't everyone win that way?
"Like I say, no one can deny that you energise the forums here - it's my personal opinion that your brand of energy (copy paste, copy paste, list, list - avoid questions) isn't particularly interesting."
_____________
"Postscript: Here's a summary of the activity volumes of my own threads on this forum with one hundred (100)
or more posts August 26 to December 18, 2015 (the past 114 days):
1) Threads without an Original Post based on a Copy & Paste: Thirteen (13) threads with 14,705 Posts
or an average of 1,011 posts per thread.
2) Threads with an Original Post based on a Copy & Paste: Four (4) threads with 1,469 Posts
or an average of 367 posts per thread.
3) Combined Total Threads: seventeen (17) with 16,174 Posts
or an average of 951 posts per thread.
Note: It's my hope that this summary will provide a meaningful context for further discussion following
my reply to your questions within a few days. Thanks again for your interest in this topic." (page 2)
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThis is exactly the kind of post which annoys so many of us. Nothing new, just a big chunk of second-hand post. We didn't bother to read it carefully the first time - why would we suddenly snap to attention when it reappears?
Originally posted by orangutan
"Like I say, no one can deny that you energise the forums here - it's my personal opinion that your brand of energy (copy paste, copy paste, list, list - avoid questions) isn't particularly interesting."
_____________
"Postscript: Here's a summary of the activity volumes of my own threads on this forum with on ...[text shortened]... ply to your questions within a few days. Thanks again for your interest in this topic." (page 2)
As for the idea that forum posters and readers should take upon themselves the requirement to keep the site viable, that's just a joke. Fewer than five percent of the site's regular users ever visit the forums. It's the other 95% who decide by their actions if the site is to survive long-term. Lecturing the committed few is a pointless activity. As is this post, and that's my own view.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyCopy paste reply noted. Thank you.
Originally posted by orangutan
"Like I say, no one can deny that you energise the forums here - it's my personal opinion that your brand of energy (copy paste, copy paste, list, list - avoid questions) isn't particularly interesting."
_____________
"Postscript: Here's a summary of the activity volumes of my own threads on this forum with on ...[text shortened]... ply to your questions within a few days. Thanks again for your interest in this topic." (page 2)
Add up your thumb up / down totals for the last 90 days.
Compare to a few other posters.
There's some numbers you may want to consider.
Originally posted by KewpieBetter put than mine.
This is exactly the kind of post which annoys so many of us. Nothing new, just a big chunk of second-hand post. We didn't bother to read it carefully the first time - why would we suddenly snap to attention when it reappears?
As for the idea that forum posters and readers should take upon themselves the requirement to keep the site viable, that's just a j ...[text shortened]... Lecturing the committed few is a pointless activity. As is this post, and that's my own view.
Enjoy your weekend Kewpie.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyOriginally posted by orangutan
"Like I say, no one can deny that you energise the forums here - it's my personal opinion that your brand of energy (copy paste, copy paste, list, list - avoid questions) isn't particularly interesting."
_____________
"Postscript: Here's a summary of the activity volumes of my own threads on this forum with one hundred (100)
or more posts August 26 to December 18, 2015 (the past 114 days):
1) Threads [b]without an Original Post based on a Copy & Paste: Thirteen (13) threads with [b]14,705 Posts
or an average of [b]1,011 posts per thread.
2) Threads [b]with an Original Post based on a Copy & Paste: Four (4) threads with [b]1,469 Posts
or an average of [b]367 posts per thread.
3) Combined Total Threads: seventeen (17) with [b]16,174 Posts
or an average of [b]951 posts per thread.
Note: It's my hope that this summary will provide a meaningful context for further discussion following
my reply to your questions within a few days. Thanks again for your interest in this topic." (page 2)
You would have us believe that this spammy copy pasted post, in its own little loyal way, is somehow making money for Russ?
19 Dec 15
Originally posted by KewpieYou took the guestimate right out of my mouth. The blurb on the Public Forums page says: "The forums are the core of the 'Red Hot Pawn' community". But that's all it is. It's just a bit of blurb. What else is a bit of blurb going to say? If the forums were the key to the commercial success of 'Red Hot Pawn', one can be absolutely certain that the blurb would have said something to that effect.
As for the idea that forum posters and readers should take upon themselves the requirement to keep the site viable, that's just a joke. Fewer than five percent of the site's regular users ever visit the forums. It's the other 95% who decide by their actions if the site is to survive long-term. Lecturing the committed few is a pointless activity. As is this post, and that's my own view.
About 10,000 subscribers have made chess moves in the last month. I would be willing to bet that about 95% of them couldn't care less about the Forums or are only dimly aware that they even exist. How many of those 10,000 post regularly ~ say on a daily basis ~ on the General Forum?
19 Dec 15
Originally posted by KewpiePerhaps Russ himself will do a rare cameo and weigh in before this thread dies.
This is exactly the kind of post which annoys so many of us. Nothing new, just a big chunk of second-hand post. We didn't bother to read it carefully the first time - why would we suddenly snap to attention when it reappears?
As for the idea that forum posters and readers should take upon themselves the requirement to keep the site viable, that's just a joke ...[text shortened]... erm. Lecturing the committed few is a pointless activity. As is this post, and that's my own view.
Meanwhile, thanks for an objective and honest conversation.
19 Dec 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySurprise, surprise. You don't address the points she raised. What kind of conversation is it?
Perhaps Russ himself will do a rare cameo and weigh in before this thread dies.
Meanwhile, thanks for an objective and honest conversation.