A few stats on the forum

[irv]

I have been thinking about installing Fedora on my test PC, so I went out and checked out their forum. Here are some stats I found out when comparing it with Ubuntu's forum.
Fedors Forum:-------------Ubuntu Forum--------Ubuntu Forum had more
Members = 70,222----------= 124,034-----------------53,812 More Members
Threads = 162,404----------= 200,238-----------------37,834 More Threads
Posts = 779,785------------= 1,154,492----------------378,707 More Posts

It appears there is more help for Ubuntu users that Fedora users.
I found this interesting so I thought I would just share it with all.

[bluevoodoo1]

It appears there is more help for Ubuntu users that Fedora users.

Maybe Ubuntu users just have more problems??

[az]

When the server had problems, searching was dissabled for guests. That was done in an effort to decrease the load on the database server.

It had the effect of increasing membership by about 1000 members every day, since people would sign up to search for a solution to their problem. We jumped from ? 70k to ? 101k in twenty days? I would say the forum numbers are a little bit off(twenty percent?), considering that and assuming that the Fedora forums never had the same thing happen to them.


Anyway, 77 percent of all statistics are wrong. Numbers are almost useless.

[kassetra]

It had the effect of increasing membership by about 1000 members every day, since people would sign up to search for a solution to their problem. We jumped from ? 70k to ? 101k in twenty days? I would say the forum numbers are a little bit off(twenty percent?), considering that and assuming that the Fedora forums never had the same thing happen to them.

Well, this also coincides with the giant marketing push about Dapper - and as we have experienced similar jumps in users for Hoary and Breezy, this wasn't anything new or mysterious.

Saying that the forum numbers are off because of a rush around the time when a new release is being eagerly anticipated and insinuating that it's a false number because of changes we made to allow the servers to keep up with the increased demand for a *few days* is disingenous and misleading at best.

[az]

eagerly anticipated and insinuating that it's a false number because of changes we made to allow the servers to keep up with the increased demand for a *few days* is disingenous and misleading at best.

Saying that the number of registered users went from increasing by about a hundred or so per day to a thousand per day for the duration of the non-forum member searches being dissabled is quite accurate. You should look it up, if you can.

The increase was not because Ubuntu was nearing release (It had actually been delayed for six weeks) and this is clear because a week later, when the non-member search was reenabled, new members were coming in a the regular rate af about a hunded per day again. This was still before release.

I'm here just about every day. I notice these things. It makes the forums look bad to overestimate the membership population like that and we should be careful whenever we discuss those numbers.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=165574
and
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=166030

[aysiu]

Did 53,812 members sign up during the week that searching was disabled for non-members?

[az]

Did 53,812 members sign up during the week that searching was disabled for non-members?
I think we went from 80k to 101k, actually.....

It was more than a week. I was speaking in reference to when that thread happened. About a week later, the problem was solved and guest searching was re-enabled.

[aysiu]

Even if you subtract 21,000, that still leaves the Ubuntu forums membership 32,000 more than the Fedora forums membership.

Of course, what really matters is how many users are logged in at any given time and actually giving help... anyone have comparative statistics on that?

[az]

Even if you subtract 21,000, that still leaves the Ubuntu forums membership 32,000 more than the Fedora forums membership.

Of course, what really matters is how many users are logged in at any given time and actually giving help... anyone have comparative statistics on that?

I would agree. Like I said, most statistics are bollocks. It's just important to be careful and not overstate the numbers. If someone is actually keeping tabs, and we go around beating our chests because of these numbers, we end up looking pretty bad.

BTW:

Here is the first time I noticed that the forum membership growth rate was on steroids:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/2006-April/006010.html

[aysiu]

Honestly, I've never much paid attention to the numbers.

I've stuck with Ubuntu because when I post questions here, they get answered. That's the bottom-line. I don't ask easy questions, either.

I used to use Mepis and I dabbled a bit with Blag, but the support on both distros' forums was terrible. People were either deliberately unhelpful or just plain unknowledgeable.

Sure, anecdotal experience doesn't count for much statistically, but I'm just saying... the forums' support is the only reason I'm still using Ubuntu. I don't care if it had only four really helpful members.

[az]

Honestly, I've never much paid attention to the numbers.

I never realised that people cared until there was a discussion a year ago about the Linspire forums artificially inflating their numbers.

Anyway, it's multi-factorial.

If you could index the level of satisfaction by the number of visitors, then we could talk about something. Until then, it's a pretty non-specific number and let's not turn it into something that generates bad publicity.

[KiwiNZ]

When the server had problems, searching was dissabled for guests. That was done in an effort to decrease the load on the database server.

It had the effect of increasing membership by about 1000 members every day, since people would sign up to search for a solution to their problem.
A some what sweeping statement can you back thatup with facts?
It would seem to me more attributed to the higher promotion due to a release given we have spikes at every release


Anyway, 77 percent of all statistics are wrong. Numbers are almost useless.
errr they are? statistics are a count of numbers ,if we gained 25,000 members we gained 25,000 members. You buy 100 eggs , you buy 100 eggs ?

[aysiu]

Anyway, 77 percent of all statistics are wrong. Numbers are almost useless. errr they are? statistics are a count of numbers ,if we gained 25,000 members we gained 25,000 members. You buy 100 eggs , you buy 100 eggs ? I could be wrong (azz has to confirm this), but I thought his remark was intended to be humorous, as he uses a statistic about how inaccurate statistics are (the made-up number 77%).

[az]

A some what sweeping statement can you back thatup with facts?

I know what I saw. And I reported it.

I would expect an administrator to be able to generate some sort of chart, plotting membership versus time. It should all be in the database....

[az]

I could be wrong (azz has to confirm this), but I thought his remark was intended to be humorous, as he uses a statistic about how inaccurate statistics are (the made-up number 77%).
Hey! You got it!

[aysiu]

Hey! You got it!
I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid.

[az]

I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid.
*I*'m both cheap *and* easy.

























...too much information....

[KiwiNZ]

I would agree. Like I said, most statistics are bollocks. It's just important to be careful and not overstate the numbers. I


It's just important to be careful and not overstate the numbers.

Your line of thinking seems to indicate that you think we are inflating the figures or misrepresenting how well we are doing.

Contrary to what some would hope we are actually doing well.

I am neither dumb or stupid I can read statistics and shock horror interpret them:rolleyes:

[az]

Your line of thinking seems to indicate that you think we are inflating the figures or misrepresenting how well we are doing.

Contrary to what some would hope we are actually doing well.


I am saying that the numbers are tainted and one should not use them for risk of making the forums look bad. And who would hope that the forums not do well?

[KiwiNZ]

Fact; We have 124,810 people who have resgistered at the time of writting this .
Fact; 58,632 people have registerd this year.YTD.

They are numbers, they are not tainted. They are all reqistrations.

As the more people try Ubuntu the more who register here . Its simple really.

I don't understand why you say we shouldn't use them . They happened they registered .The logic of not using them makes no sense.Does any
corporation not use sales figures because they have grown too fast ? No. They use all figures. And so should we. If somene askme how many members have registered I answer today 124,810. Your logic would have me say 66,000 beacuse the additional numbers are tainted and I can't tell you them .

[aysiu]

While I agree that forcing people to register may inflate registrations more than they normally would occur--that inflation doesn't account for the 50,000+ members that the Ubuntu forums has over the Fedora forums, and, more importantly, if people care enough about searching the forums that they would go to the trouble of registering just to search... they're clearly Ubuntu users, so what does it matter, anyway?

[az]

While I agree that forcing people to register may inflate registrations more than they normally would occur--that inflation doesn't account for the 50,000+ members that the Ubuntu forums has over the Fedora forums,
Okay, all I'm saying is that those numbers are somewhat tainted. I am not trying to say that these forums are less popular than Fedora's.

I would say that any other metric one could use to measure that would prove it. Ever visited Distrowatch?

I am a big fan of how helpful these forums are to the users and how big a part of the Ubuntu community they are. I happen to be here every day, and I dish out a heck of a lot more support than most people. You should not have to look further to know where I am coming from.

I'm just pointing out that using those numbers can be a liability in terms of credibility. Period.

And calling me disingenuous and misleading is rude, BTW! Thanks for the ****-bomb.

[KiwiNZ]

And calling me disingenuous and misleading is rude, BTW! Thanks for the ****-bomb.

Tis you that that is saying we are misleading :rolleyes:

[kassetra]

azz:

Thank you for your concern regarding the registration statistics of this forum. At this time we have no further information to give you in response to your claims of false statistics. We have presented all of the information to answer your questions sufficiently.

Thank you for your time.
Have a nice day.

Kass

[KiwiNZ]

I think the circles we will turn in this thread will make us all motion sick. I dont wont to ruin my new carpet so I am using one of my locks.

Ching clank clang its closed