Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Membership climbing?
- Thread starter Blue Velvet
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I try to be serious for a change and look what happens! 
Side note: My graphs only show the number of memberships, which while probably related to site "traffic" are not actually representative of that.
Side note: My graphs only show the number of memberships, which while probably related to site "traffic" are not actually representative of that.
From max_altitude's graph, it appears that the three or four spikes in the membership rate were a result of people signing up in bunches rather than more people signing up.
Since the distinction is subtle, I'll give an example: Suppose we had steady state growth of 1 new member per day. The graph of cumulative membership would be a straight line. Now, suppose that 7 people sign up on a particularly exciting Tuesday. If we also get the usual 1 new member per day the rest of the week, there would be a stair step in the curve but it would continue at the same slope, just raised to a higher count. On the other hand, if nobody else signs up on other days that week, the curve would be more like the one max_altitude posted, where the spike returns to the original line.
I conclude that the people who joined MacRumors when something exciting was going on were going to join anyway. How's that for turning a table of numbers into mindreading?
Independent of that, we do have a slight acceleration, a gradual increase in the rate of growth, and that's nice to see.
Since the distinction is subtle, I'll give an example: Suppose we had steady state growth of 1 new member per day. The graph of cumulative membership would be a straight line. Now, suppose that 7 people sign up on a particularly exciting Tuesday. If we also get the usual 1 new member per day the rest of the week, there would be a stair step in the curve but it would continue at the same slope, just raised to a higher count. On the other hand, if nobody else signs up on other days that week, the curve would be more like the one max_altitude posted, where the spike returns to the original line.
I conclude that the people who joined MacRumors when something exciting was going on were going to join anyway. How's that for turning a table of numbers into mindreading?
Independent of that, we do have a slight acceleration, a gradual increase in the rate of growth, and that's nice to see.
Of course, pure membership numbers can be misleading, and probably have only a little actual impact on how we "feel" membership is growing.
For example, from 01/01/2004 to today, we've added nearly 41,000 members. Of those 41,000 members, about 83% of them have posted fewer than 10 times.
So the real question remains, how many new members are posting regularly, vs. joining and not posting?
For example, from 01/01/2004 to today, we've added nearly 41,000 members. Of those 41,000 members, about 83% of them have posted fewer than 10 times.
So the real question remains, how many new members are posting regularly, vs. joining and not posting?
I might have to beg to differ with the honorable Doctor from - where are you from again? The mean join rate was 1459.375 per month (which we don't get TOO far away from at any point), which does support your theory. But, I would like to know what the full ban rate is along with the already mentioned post rate. I would imagine that there has been an increase in the ban rate as spammers plague our midsts more heavily. They should acount for a greater proportion of registrars at peak periods when MR does get a bit more publicity.Doctor Q said:I conclude that the people who joined MacRumors when something exciting was going on were going to join anyway. How's that for turning a table of numbers into mindreading?
I am basing this off the idea that MR's fame is proprotional to its spam rate (please correct me here, since will stop me quickly). So, as we gain in fame and fortune, our base rate of "fame" will increase. This level of fame will experience a massive, albeit temporary, rise during major Apple events. While the level will then drop off somewhat, it will still be significantly higher than it was previous to the event. As fame rate rises, but inductee rate remains level, it holds that spammers as a percentage increase. That would mean that while membership is increasing rapidly, we are not "growing" as quickly as we once did. I would love to get an analysis of the spam-related ban statistics.
I don't know what people's standards are but, for example, 93 people who joined within the past month have 10 or more posts already (one has 107). I'd call them regular posters, I guess.MacNut said:
Also, FWIW, four members joined after the start of the year and have earned avators: ieani, ChrisA, calebjohnston, and Peyton.
Like jsw, it varies from person to person. For me, a regular is someone who, when I see a strange comment from them, I am not thinking "Who is this person?" (I can think of many examples) nor "Hey....long time no see!" (like if wdlove were to post again instead of just watching us).MacNut said:
I tend to think of regular posters as users who post at least once or twice a week. Post counts or averages can be deceiving - if they post 15 times a month, but all in one day, then that's not, in my mind, regular (or normal, for than matter).
According to MR, a "Regular" poster is someone who has between 100 and 499 posts, inclusive.
According to MR, a "Regular" poster is someone who has between 100 and 499 posts, inclusive.
K-Pax.nbs2 said:
I haven't tracked ban rates for what I call spamvertisers (people who join to post an ad for a commercial product and are instantly banned, with their post or link removed), but they do not seem to appear more or less frequently during big events, nor more or less frequently over time. That's actually a surprise since the site has gained visibility over time.
We probably get more trolls (people who join only to flame) during big events. That may be because they represent a certain constant (and, thankfully, small) percentage of site visitors and new members, so we see more of them during big events because there are simply more visitors and new members at those times.
Perhaps I should submit that to your to-do list.Doctor Q said:
Do you have any sort of troll numbers? I notice that they seem to get banned after several posts in a thread that is eventually wastelanded. It would be tough to get the numbers, but if there is a way, I would expect to see the percentage increase. I feel like we are the number 3 Apple site in terms of fame (behind TS and AI), but the forums here are the most popular among the community. I don't have a long Apple history, but I imagine that these is a change from what may have been earlier - or no?
You mean there are drugs to lower post rates? If I wasn't such a purist, I'd think twice about that.
max_altitude, nice set of figures you've got there. Appreciated buddy, and don't worry, you didn't miss anything at bowling last night.
max_altitude, nice set of figures you've got there. Appreciated buddy, and don't worry, you didn't miss anything at bowling last night.