2% of the Users?

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
98,387
Reaction score
104,273
Points
3,615
Why are the members here only 2% of the users? Actually only 1.5% right now.

I checked the other week and again, it was about 2%. 98% of the users are not even members here? Meantime we are told the site is a burden to the server and not even a money-maker enough to be worth keeping alive much less fixing and updating so that it doesn't sometimes take a minute just to post a message?

Ever think that other 98% is slowing us down? Could they be the problem? Usually we have 150 users, now down to 62. I guess that makes my comment only 0.0003226% of the total opinion databreadth.
 
Why are the members here only 2% of the users? Actually only 1.5% right now.

I checked the other week and again, it was about 2%. 98% of the users are not even members here? Meantime we are told the site is a burden to the server and not even a money-maker enough to be worth keeping alive much less fixing and updating so that it doesn't sometimes take a minute just to post a message?

Ever think that other 98% is slowing us down? Could they be the problem? Usually we have 150 users, now down to 62. I guess that makes my comment only 0.0003226% of the total opinion databreadth.
Hey, calling all MODS. Be nice for you to explain the above.
 
Hey, calling all MODS. Be nice for you to explain the above.
I'm actually curious how many members are here, not just guests tire kicking and browsing around
 
I'm actually curious how many members are here, not just guests tire kicking and browsing around

The site tells you. Right now:
  • 39 members
  • 5,400 guests
What are all these guests reading since only members can post (and so few are posting right now)?

Normally, I'd expect maybe about 100 people actually on here, normal members.
 
The site tells you. Right now:
  • 39 members
  • 5,400 guests
What are all these guests reading since only members can post (and so few are posting right now)?

Normally, I'd expect maybe about 100 people actually on here, normal members.
39 members online but how many today who are just not logged in but joined
is what I wonder

by those numbers there are currently less than 40 who are more active than others
and actually stay logged and post, like you and me
 
The site tells you. Right now:
  • 39 members
  • 5,400 guests
What are all these guests reading since only members can post (and so few are posting right now)?

Normally, I'd expect maybe about 100 people actually on here, normal members.
5400 "guest" robots.
 
39 members online but how many today who are just not logged in but joined
is what I wonder

by those numbers there are currently less than 40 who are more active than others
and actually stay logged and post, like you and me
I am a member
And I am postting
 
I am a member
And I am postting
yep, I can see you posting, thanks for checking in

now who are all these browsers like USMB is some sort of chocolate shop

can't decide to shit or get off the pot apparently
 
Why are the members here only 2% of the users? Actually only 1.5% right now.

I checked the other week and again, it was about 2%. 98% of the users are not even members here? Meantime we are told the site is a burden to the server and not even a money-maker enough to be worth keeping alive much less fixing and updating so that it doesn't sometimes take a minute just to post a message?

Ever think that other 98% is slowing us down? Could they be the problem? Usually we have 150 users, now down to 62. I guess that makes my comment only 0.0003226% of the total opinion databreadth.

A Chat site for the elderly is inevitably going to decrease rapidly at some point as dementia and death claim its most infirm .
And there is no real USP to attract new voices , let alone young ones .

My guess is that those who own /run the site have lost energy and vision .
The site is like an old car that is rusting on the outside and needs new parts for the engine .
 
yep, I can see you posting, thanks for checking in

now who are all these browsers like USMB is some sort of chocolate shop

can't decide to shit or get off the pot apparently
I’m worried about your understanding of chocolate, now.
 
A Chat site for the elderly is inevitably going to decrease rapidly at some point as dementia and death claim its most infirm .
And there is no real USP to attract new voices , let alone young ones .

My guess is that those who own /run the site have lost energy and vision .
The site is like an old car that is rusting on the outside and needs new parts for the engine .
There is a lot of the rust.
 
I’m worried about your understanding of chocolate, now.
LOL, well there are many sub board, go into a chocolate
shop and you have a large variety
 
LOL, well there are many sub board, go into a chocolate
shop and you have a large variety
I’m not sure you heard the “whoooosh” over your head.

[BackAgain taps the mic.]

Is this thing on?
 
15th post
Forum stats say the USMB has just shy of 49k members. Some might be long gone though.
 
Forum stats say the USMB has just shy of 49k members. Some might be long gone though.
What they don’t tell ya is that most of those “members” are actually bots.

It’s come down to this:

Bots are now keeping track of the nonsense spewed by other bots.
 
Some of us actually pay to be members as a means to actually support the channel. One of the reasons the site isn't a "money" maker is because so many "members" (and non-members) want the benefit of a site like this without the sacrifice that it takes to keep it up and running. Sorta like the Welfare Class. They want the free stuff without doing anything to earn it.
 
Some of us actually pay to be members as a means to actually support the channel. One of the reasons the site isn't a "money" maker is because so many "members" (and non-members) want the benefit of a site like this without the sacrifice that it takes to keep it up and running. Sorta like the Welfare Class. They want the free stuff without doing anything to earn it.
I have contributed money to the forum for the reasons you cited.
 
Back
Top Bottom