1 edit
Originally posted by Indonesia Phil"I don't understand the question (in the context)" ["dying": 2013 in comparison with the number of site members and volume of posts from 2007 to December, 2012; there's been an accelerating decline during the past year.];
I don't understand the question (in the context); people start threads because 'there are a lot more things to talk about'. Threads don't (in my ever so humble opinion) need to ramble on for ages to be good. If people want to say something, let them say it, I say; 'tis the nature of the beast, and long may it roam the forests of our leisure time.
"people start threads because 'there are a lot more things to talk about'." [there have always been interesting topics (people, events, ideas, etc.) of general interest in the news in many corners of the world each day; conversation in the past was lively and sustained as compared such a high percentage 1-2 day only dismissive posts today.]
"Threads don't (in my ever so humble opinion) need to ramble on for ages to be good. If people want to say something, let them say it, I say; 'tis the nature of the beast, and long may it roam the forests of our leisure time." (Indonesia Phil) [We agree; fact of the matter is that there's only so much discretionary time each day. If an increasing number of available posts become entries in word games, it's little wonder that the 70% rate of early attrition isn't even higher today.]
Thanks, Phil, for your thoughtful reply. Bob
Originally posted by PonderablePonderable, threads identified in my initial post were, in effect, either defective specimens or circumstantially boycotted for whatever the reason. Result: after a dozen or fewer hits they were no longer viable vehicles of conversation and DOA. Bob
thos eare not dead...
the dead ones are before April 27th...
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyDear Mr Bob; That wasn't actually the question that I didn't understand, it was the one about '...why start threads in this forum.' And I wasn't making comparison with other, historical times, merely with the spiritual forum thingy. Anyway it's no bid deal and I'm sure you raise a salient point. I still think the general forum is ripping good fun, and it brings me back into the big world when I'm playing particularly bad chess, which is most of the time. So, if I may send out a general (and thus appropriate) greeting to all of the people who post here, selamat pagi. (as we say in Indonesia, which roughly translates as; have a nice day.)
"I don't understand the question (in the context)" ["dying": 2013 in comparison with the number of site members and volume of posts from 2007 to December, 2012; there's been an accelerating decline during the past year.];
"people start threads because 'there are a lot more things to talk about'." [there have always been interesting topics (people, ev ...[text shortened]... ition isn't even higher today.]
Thanks, Phil, for your thoughtful reply. Bob
1 edit
Originally posted by Indonesia Phil"...why start threads in this forum." | Phil, my social error in overlooking the obvious. Simple question, simple answer: to "start threads in this forum", with a few wonderful exceptions, has become an exercise in futility in recent months, as the "70% stat" attests. [The misspelling could have been correct by utilizing the "Edit" Feature. The access button's located at the bottom right of your post's frame and remains accessible for about an hour]. Thank for your patience. Bob
Dear Mr Bob; That wasn't actually the question that I didn't understand, it was the one about '...why start threads in this forum.' And I wasn't making comparison with other, historical times, merely with the spiritual forum thingy. Anyway it's no bid deal and I'm sure you raise a salient point. I still think the general forum is ripping good fun, and e, selamat pagi. (as we say in Indonesia, which roughly translates as; have a nice day.)
2 edits
Originally posted by KewpieKewpie, you may have nailed the disruptive culprit (or a significant component), by reason of applying my own applied logic: 'there's only so much discretionary time available for this site's members to contribute to its forums'. By extension, there's only so much ink in an RHP General Forum/FB Poster's Laptop Mouse (no pun intended with your "Angry Bird" lol). Still, why the glaring disparity previously illustrated? Thanks for an important and valuable insight. -Bob
facebook of course. It's killed most of the forums out there.
_____________________
"During its past seven pages, May 3 to June 27, 2013, the Spirituality Forum has seen a modest 25% (53/210) of its threads die with a dozen or fewer posts: > Spirituality Forum: 53/210 = 25% <------> General Forum: 90/210 = 43% = 70% Greater Volume of General Forum Thread casualties (90/53). Does this contrast illustrate the difference between Life & Death? (gb)"
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYes but, there are regulars at the Spirituality Forum who can be relied upon in a Pavlovian sense to regurgitate the JW/anti-JW and Christian/atheist themes which keep threads alive but add no new content to previous threads on the same topics. So the GF regulars would be foolish to try to emulate the SF regulars, for thread longevity, by this means.
Kewpie, you may have nailed the disruptive culprit (or a significant component), by reason of applying my own applied logic: 'there's only so much discretionary time available for this site's members to contribute to its forums'. By extension, there's only so much ink in an RHP General Forum/FB Poster's Laptop Mouse (no pun intended with your "Angry Bir (90/53). Does this contrast illustrate the difference between Life & Death? (gb)"[/b]