ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 623 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-21-13
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: Simply comparing the number of active users with the amount of new kibitzing can be very misleading for several reasons. Perhaps most importantly, admins have indicated that a shockingly large percentage of members are actually bot accounts; since most bots don't kibitz - and those that do kibitz tend to get the axe - counting bots would skew the statistics. In particular:
<chessgames.com: We also investigated what has long been a mystery to us: why such a huge number of people have "Chess Tutor" selected as their default viewer. If Chess Tutor was some masterpiece of programming this would be plausible--but let's face it, Chess Tutor is very old software that is doubtfully anybody's first choice. Here's what we unearthed: It turns out that a certain spam-bot that spent months creating bogus accounts had a predilection for Chess Tutor. Perhaps the spammer thought that if it switched its default viewer it would appear to be more sincere.> We're really talking about a <huge> number of bot accounts here. If you took a random account registered around that time, you'd have a roughly 50% chance of hitting that spambot... and I doubt it's the only bot to have done such things, though it was probably the most active. Thus, just by looking at the numbers, it would seem that the decline in kibitzing/day started well <before> the decline in the number of active users - but in this case the numbers may well be lying, since the latter number was boosted by the spambot while the former was not. Also, the decline in the number of active users may look more drastic than it actually is if the current level is compared to bot-enhanced levels. (That's supposing the current level isn't significantly bot-enhanced, of course.) The decline in total kibitzing, the decline in # of ChessBookie players and the decline in # of active chessforums are all very real, though. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | Robed.Bishop: <SwitchingQuylthulg: The decline in total kibitzing, the decline in # of ChessBookie players and the decline in # of active chessforums are all very real, though.> We could always fall back on a Monte Python trick to increase kibitzing, by simply arguing (without flaming). So in response to your statement highlighted above, I say, "No it's not." You then say something like, "Yes it is." And we go from there. If we get maybe 10 of us going at it, we'll have the kibitzing numbers up in no time! |
|
Aug-21-13
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Robed.Bishop: I think we can all agree that some percentage of users find flame wars disagreeable, but it strikes me as superficial to blame reduced kibitzing on the wars. I would think that it would be the other way around, that flame wars increase kibitzing. The hotter the flame, the more kibitzing. This, of course, assumes that the number of users stays the same.> I also have misgivings about blaming trolls or flame wars, not because they don't drive people away from the site (they do) or discourage newbies from registering (they do) but because they aren't a new phenomenon. <AJ>, for instance, has been driving people away from Chessgames for ages (User: Benjamin Lau, anybody?) I suspect they have played a part in the declining numbers, but only as one cause among many. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | Robed.Bishop: <SwitchingQuylthulg> I agree with you. And for all we know there are others here who come for the confrontations. Flame wars, confrontations, arguments, all of these are to a degree inevitable when people debate any topic. We know the discussions here at CG aren't limited to chess. Politics, music, books, religion, could there be more contentious subjects? Anyone expecting a state of constant peace has unreasonable expectations. So the question isn't how does a site eliminate them, it's really more how they are controlled. The site could ban non-chess discussions altogether. This isn't reasonable or even desirable. Let's move on. The site can monitor posts and, on its own initiative, delete what is deemed inappropriate. I'm sure this is done to a degree, but it seems that this would be burdensome and perhaps even heavy-handed. After all, unless someone objects, why intervene? The site can rely on its members to police itself. Community pressure in and of itself can stifle some amount of disagreeable content, but the people who want to engage in disharmony aren't going to bow to this. The site can rely on its members to report misuse. This is obviously done here, though the people engaged in the activity are unlikely to do this, so only when "outsiders" object will there be any action, and even then only when it is sustained or particularly nasty. Any type of censorship is going to ruffle some feathers, though it is a necessary function. Containment seems to be the most popular strategy used here, successfully to a large degree, though inadequate in the opinion of some. As an admin or site owner, which course of action would you (and I don't mean you specifically) take? The one that meets your own feelings about how a site should run, considering freedom of speech, etc? The one that makes the most members happy? The one that draws the most users in? "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" What indeed. |
|
Aug-21-13
 | | Tabanus: <The site can rely on its members to police itself> I think it would be an idea to let a handful grown-up volunteers delete off-topic posts that are older than say 2-5 years (if technically possible). Especially on the player pages. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | Robed.Bishop: <Tabanus> A.K.A. moderators. They, well, moderate. In my limited experience with moderators, they are used for live (meaning real time) conversations as opposed to after-the-fact reviews. Which isn't to say that the site couldn't swear in a few members and form a posse. I'd suggest we arm them with six pens instead of six shooters. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | benjinathan: I wonder how much of it is the fact that we haven't had a world v GM game in a while? |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | MarkFinan: How is it I've never been banned from chess dot con, or any other site where its possible to get into arguments, yet Goldsby's been banned from them all???
And even though i fully admit i bicker way too much, how is it i got banned from here yet Goldsby's still here doing the same thing but with different people after all these years??
Other sites prosper without AJ yet this one isn't and that's a real shame because this is a brilliant site and Goldsby's a complete moron.. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | Robed.Bishop: I think we can say with a high degree of certainty that <benjinathan> considers the World v. GM to be the most important facet of this site and that the games are not provided quickly enough. Or maybe I just misunderstood your two posts?
I'm not being insulting here, at least that's not my intent, and your posts illustrate the difficulties running a site. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | TheFocus: I have noticed that thee amount of kibitzing is down more than usual, but I have seen it before. it may be that some people are just busy. It seems to run in cycles. |
|
Aug-21-13
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <benjinathan: I wonder how much of it is the fact that we haven't had a world v GM game in a while?> Probably not much, since the number of people participating in World v. GM games has been similarly dwindling... Chessgames v. Nickel: 2616
Chessgames v. Shulman: 2449
Chessgames v. Timmerman: 3008
Chessgames v. Nickel II: 2088
Chessgames v. Umansky: 1977
Chessgames v. Pogonina: 2021
Chessgames v. Akobian: 1508
Chessgames v. Akobian II: 1419
(To some extent the number of participants correlates with the length of the game, so these raw numbers are somewhat misleading. The Timmerman game lasted 62 moves and was opened a month before the first move was made, whereas the two Akobian games lasted 33 and 35 moves respectively. But again, there's a real decline in there.) |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | benjinathan: <Or maybe I just misunderstood your two posts?>
slightly.
I don't think the gm games are the most important part of the site. However, I recognize there is a direct cost to the site associated with them and am willing to contribute to that.
There are however some that are only here when the GM games are on. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | Robed.Bishop: <benjinathan> I see. Fair enough. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | MarkFinan: Well i for one think this is the best site on the Internet for chess (and cranks to buzz off!) so long live CeeGee..
Here's to another 10yrs of LM filled lunacy ;) |
|
Aug-21-13
 | | chessgames.com: Our year-over-year gross web traffic is up only very slightly, less than 2%. However, this is due largely to an explosion of mobile traffic (now about 8% of total traffic). Not surprisingly, our "participatory traffic" (people who actively post) has gone down a little bit. In other words, traffic's about the same, but more people lurk. The primary driving cause is surely this: only 3 or 4 years ago we had virtually no competitors, but now there are several. That's nothing to be ashamed of. We've pored over these statistics with great seriousness. Our conclusion was that in spite of fluctuations in popularity, we don't believe that our greatest days are behind us. Not by a longshot. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | Robed.Bishop: 'nuf said. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | Benzol: <MarkFinan> <Here's to another 10yrs of LM filled lunacy ;)> Lord I hope not. LOL.
:) |
|
Aug-22-13
 | | jessicafischerqueen: 100 more years please, thanks for your patience with us too. |
|
| Aug-22-13 | | notyetagm: <CG.COM>
Can we please have a forum for the <88TH FRENCH CHAMPIONSHIP>? Thanks
----
TWIC DOSSIER -> http://www.theweekinchess.com/chess... TWIC PGN -> http://www.theweekinchess.com/asset... |
|
| Aug-22-13 | | Thanh Phan: Would there be another World vs. GM game again? They were interesting |
|
Aug-22-13
| | chessgames.com: <another World vs. GM game> Of course there will be; we are actually talking to three different GMs right now trying to arrange the proper scheduling. |
|
| Aug-22-13 | | TheFocus: <we don't believe that our greatest days are behind us> Nor do I.
Still the best. |
|
Aug-23-13
| | Tabanus: <flame wars increase kibitzing.> Probably true, but increased kibitzing is not a goal in itself? I would think increased reading (by N visitors) would be great. Not to mention increase in number of paying members. |
|
Aug-23-13
| | Tabanus: <reduced users or reduced kibitzing> Is there any connection between the two? For example Wikipedia has many users, but no (or little) kibitzing. |
|
Aug-24-13
 | | Phony Benoni: When a person goes to the Pun Voting Booth when they still have a very large number to be judged. are they sent to the earliest submissions, the latest submission, or is the selection made at random? |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 623 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
