![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by RedSoxFan79 on June 1, 2005, at 13:30:08
Dr. Bob, There are some other forums that I belong to where when somebody post a new thread, you can see how many times people have viewed and read the read. Would it be possible to add this feature to this site, I just think it would be good to know how much interest the threads we post are being viewed by others, so we know what others want to know about then we can generate more responses. Thank you.
Posted by Phillipa on June 1, 2005, at 17:56:22
In reply to Question for Dr. Bob, posted by RedSoxFan79 on June 1, 2005, at 13:30:08
I think we have a better way to do this. All the responses are directly under the Thread title and you can see at a glance what the response has been. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on June 1, 2005, at 17:59:06
In reply to Question for Dr. Bob, posted by RedSoxFan79 on June 1, 2005, at 13:30:08
My husband just added that if you could see how many people had read the Thread and not responded wouldn't that make you feel that noone cared? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 2, 2005, at 7:41:53
In reply to Re: Question for Dr. Bob » RedSoxFan79, posted by Phillipa on June 1, 2005, at 17:56:22
> All the responses are directly under the Thread title and you can see at a glance what the response has been.
Plus when people want to know something, they just ask?
Bob
Posted by RedSoxFan79 on June 2, 2005, at 12:56:01
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by Dr. Bob on June 2, 2005, at 7:41:53
Ok, but what Im saying is that when I am looking through all the posts, I dont stop and read everyone thats posted, I only read the ones where the tilte has some sort of interest to me and I presume that the average person on your sight does the same thing.
Posted by Phillipa on June 2, 2005, at 16:44:06
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by RedSoxFan79 on June 2, 2005, at 12:56:01
The title doesn't necessarily mean that's really what the topic is about. Sometimes a Thread will start with a question. The first few posts attempt to help with the problem or question. Then they will sometimes change topic as someone sees a poster they haven't seen in a while and begins to chat. Or an answer someone posted brings up another question or topic, or someone may even jump in to criticize something that has been written in which case Dr. Bob will review the Thread and may post a Please Be Civil or institute a Block if the poster has done this before. You can't go by a number on the side of a topic to let you know what the response to that original question has been. Does this make sense? I've tried to explain. Anyone else? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2005, at 15:26:11
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by RedSoxFan79 on June 2, 2005, at 12:56:01
> when I am looking through all the posts, I dont stop and read everyone thats posted, I only read the ones where the tilte has some sort of interest to me and I presume that the average person on your sight does the same thing.
I think you're probably right. Sorry, but could you repeat the question?
Bob
Posted by Susan47 on June 5, 2005, at 13:04:37
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2005, at 15:26:11
Oooh, that was lovely, Dr. Bob. Very good. M-hm. I liked that. You're a bit diabolical, sweetie, aren't you. Please don't block me, though, and I do apologize, in advance. BTW if you're reading and it isn't too late, would you like to send Sunny some well-wishes? Because I know you would probably like to do that, time is running out, though. IF anyone else reads this and would like to post a well-wish to Sunny, I think I posted the thread at the bottom of Social. And AdaGrace has started one there as well.
Big MWAH to all of you, from Sunny10....
Posted by so on June 5, 2005, at 16:41:46
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2005, at 15:26:11
> Sorry, but could you repeat the question?
>The question, as posed by RedSoxFan79, asked if a feature could be included to show how many times a post had been read, as is available on many other free-ware bulletin boards:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/506300.html
"There are some other forums that I belong to where when somebody post a new thread, you can see how many times people have viewed and read the read. Would it be possible to add this feature to this site,"
The question is also viewable by clicking the links under "thread" at the bottom of the post to which you replied. One advantage of asynchrounous network dialogue is it can provide tools for anyone who cares to review previous entries to easily backtrack through a dialogue thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2005, at 16:54:43
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by so on June 5, 2005, at 16:41:46
Or alternatively...
>I just think it would be good to know how much interest the threads we post are being viewed by others, so we know what others want to know about then we can generate more responses.
Maybe he wants to know what other people like to read about????
And so that could be one way of finding out...
But then another way would be to simply ask people...
Posted by so on June 6, 2005, at 0:30:22
In reply to Re: what others want to know about » so, posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2005, at 16:54:43
> Or alternatively...
>
> >I just think it would be good to know how much interest the threads we post are being viewed by others, so we know what others want to know about then we can generate more responses.
>
>Those are strong reasons in support of the feasibility querry and the implicit request for a page-view-count feature. Maybe those strong reasons are why the question was so clear and memorable to me ... the question remained apparent to me even without my reviewing the original post because I am familiar with the "page views" function and appreciate the meaning of information the function provides that would not be available just by asking people.
For one thing, asking people only finds out what people who reply to posts like to read about, whereas page-view counts can indicate what is being read by people who might not respond.
With fewer people visiting the board now than anytime in the past year and probably in the past four years, and with more specific topics for the smaller readership to choose between, it would seem worthwhile for those who like to respond to have more information about where the readership is focused. Available referer information might be informative, but it can be confusing too. According to site stats, more than 30 percent of the top 30 referers are sex or dating sites, including some about bestiality and others about couples seeking female partners.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 1:28:27
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by so on June 6, 2005, at 0:30:22
> Those are strong reasons in support of the feasibility querry and the implicit request for a page-view-count feature.
I guess it depends what one is wanting...
If one wants to know how many people opened the post then I guess a counter would be informative.
But sometimes I open posts accidentally by clicking in the wrong place.
Sometimes I view one post more than once.
Sometimes I don't read the whole post.
Sometimes I open a post solely to babblemail the person.
If one wants to know what topics people like to read about then the simplest way would be to ask.
I don't much like the idea of the post counter.
If there was one there is the temptation to go 'my post was viewed 100 times and I only got 2 responses!!!'
It shifts the focus from what you get to what might have been.> With fewer people visiting the board now than anytime in the past year and probably in the past four years,
Really?????
Can you give me a link?
Are lurkers visits logged?>and with more specific topics for the smaller readership to choose between,
Are the topics more specific than they used to be? I thought we were branching out with all the different boards and all...
>According to site stats, more than 30 percent of the top 30 referers are sex or dating sites, including some about bestiality and others about couples seeking female partners.
You mean people join up to here by following a link from those sites?????
Can you give me a link please?
I'm not sure where you are getting this info...
There are several factors that influence whether I will respond to a thread or not. One of those is the subject header. But there are other factors for me.
And the factors vary depending on what mood I am in.
When I am down I might go on a 'silly' thread hunt.
When I am up I might go on a 'who doesn't have many responses' or a 'meet the newbie' hunt.
It varies...
Posted by so on June 6, 2005, at 16:28:50
In reply to Re: what others want to know about » so, posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 1:28:27
> > Those are strong reasons in support of the feasibility querry and the implicit request for a page-view-count feature.
>
> I guess it depends what one is wanting...Or on how much they care about statistical methods. Asking for voluntarily initiated responses from whomever replies ranks lowest on a scale of accuracy compared to manual counts or specific, methodical polls of randomly selected respondants. That is not so much about one's opinion of what is more informative, but about the science of statistics and polling.
> If one wants to know how many people opened the post then I guess a counter would be informative.
Actually, all the page views tells one is how many unique views, not how many unique people viewed it.
> But sometimes I open posts accidentally by clicking in the wrong place.
That would account for a small percentage of the tally in a page-view count. People would not likely continue using a service in which most of their navigation decisions were errors related to uncoordinated use of a mouse and cursor selection system.
> Sometimes I view one post more than once.
Usually, cookie information or other methods only count unique views, they don't count repeated visits by the same person.
> Sometimes I don't read the whole post.
> Sometimes I open a post solely to babblemail the person.How well read posts might be is a more difficult matter to tease out, but uncertainly about depth of reading doesn't undermine insight gained from viewing information about interests as reported by page views. Again, the question isn't really whether this is useful information -- that is well answered by its wide use elsewhere. The quesiton is whether this admin want's people who want to use it here to have access to that information or not. Apparenlty he does not.
Intra-site click-throughs, such as from a particular post to babble mail, don't appear in the statistical set presented here, but I wouldn't suspect they are the majority of views. The majority of page viewers probably don't use babble mail, as I can deduce from other data that suggests most viewers and posters don't engage in group activities beyond posting, but a count of babblemail users and uses would likely confirm my hypothesis.
> If one wants to know what topics people like to read about then the simplest way would be to ask.
That would be simpler than asking for a page view counter to be activated. Asking for a page view counter might be an absolutely unproductive way to get information about what pages people are viewing if the admin declines to activate such a feature. But if a page view counter were activated, looking at the count would be simpler than typing out a querry, contemplating how to publish the querry then waiting for and anaylzing responses. All one needs to do to understand what is simpler is count the actions required for each step. And even then, simplicity is not a measure of how informative or accurate is the information. Breadth and completeness of data are better measures of accuracy.
> I don't much like the idea of the post counter.
> If there was one there is the temptation to go 'my post was viewed 100 times and I only got 2 responses!!!'That is exactly why I like them. When posing technical questions on other boards, one gets an idea how hard the question might be to answer. If the question only gets four views in a day and no answer, the board is slow and might not be the best way to get an answer. If one gets 50 views and no answer while other questions are answered after 10 or 20 views, I would need to ask if either the question is difficult or maybe written unintelligably. Comparing view/response ratio for various questions is a quick way to formulate an idea how the question is being received. On most boards I visit, asking people what kinds of posts they like to read would be a shot in the dark. The more useful information to me is an understanding of board members' ability to quickly and accurately answer my technical questions by measuring their answers in real-time data, not by informal polls of self-selected respondents.
> It shifts the focus from what you get to what might have been.Not for me, and not for hundreds or thousands of freeware message board users who find them valuable tools. It is a standard feature on most freeware boards. MattsBB -- the Perl script behind this site -- is somewhat unique among message boards in its lack of front-end bells and whistles such as view counters - and smileys if you like those.
> > With fewer people visiting the board now than anytime in the past year and probably in the past four years,
>
> Really?????
> Can you give me a link?
> Are lurkers visits logged?Yes, lurker visits tick the counters. I can't say if it is "really" true -- I can say that is what the data seems to show. Follow the "statistics" links in the page menu. Look for the "Urchin" data then set a datarange to look at everything from late January till June. The most recent weekend was the slowest yet this year, and the previous weekend was second slowest. Comparisons to previous years are flawed because admin changed to a different counting method, but if views in Urchin are the same as views counted under the previous system, the average weekly view count, at the current low mark, is now at its lowest since 2001.
>
> >and with more specific topics for the smaller readership to choose between,
>
> Are the topics more specific than they used to be? I thought we were branching out with all the different boards and all...Well, we know politics is on politics, meds are on PB, whatever is on social, eating is on eating,etc.
> >According to site stats, more than 30 percent of the top 30 referers are sex or dating sites, including some about bestiality and others about couples seeking female partners.
>
> You mean people join up to here by following a link from those sites?????It means they arrive at this site from a link on those sites. It is curious that no other mental health sites appear prominently in the list of referers. Though other people here read other mental health sites, links from those sites, if there are any, don't seem to be generating traffic. I think half of the counted reefers were Googled and direct requests.
> Can you give me a link please?
Again, you can find that by exploring the stats link. Alexis seems to be the only one showing some sort of upward curve -- I think in reach, which is how many people compared to how many hits -- maybe fewer pages are being viewed by a proportionally larger number of people. Sociologically, that would be interesting -- long term members are demonstrating a trend toward face-to-face communication, or direct contact through e-mail whereas those who visit the board for the first time might not stay as long.
>
> I'm not sure where you are getting this info...
>
> There are several factors that influence whether I will respond to a thread or not. One of those is the subject header. But there are other factors for me.
>
> And the factors vary depending on what mood I am in.
>
> When I am down I might go on a 'silly' thread hunt.
> When I am up I might go on a 'who doesn't have many responses' or a 'meet the newbie' hunt.
> It varies...i think something about the dynamic of this site can create the impression that regular members are the majority - maybe because their posts are more recognizable because one remembers them personally. But probably the true majority is short-time visitors -- I think Hsiung noted that in a recent post. And in readership analysis, understanding the needs and interests of those who don't stay long and who don't volunteer responses about why or how they use a publication is as important or more important than the views of vocal readers who spend more time with a publication. Again, that's not based so much personal opinion as it is science about the way one goes about understanding who uses a publication and how.
Posted by Phillipa on June 6, 2005, at 16:52:26
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by so on June 6, 2005, at 16:28:50
I'm like Alexandra. If the weather is bad, or if I don't have anything to do I visit more sites. This is a form of communication for me. My internet friends. And I Babblemail a lot of posters if I have a question I don't want others to see. And I also will click on a post to get to the person's Babblemail, without reading the post. I have noticed that there have been less Threads on most Boards lately, but I attribute that to the nicer weather, kids out of school, vacations, etc. I base that on what I see happening around me in real life. And how would a sex link send you to Babble? I know I'm not computer smart and only know the very basics. But there is one site I visit that uses the smiley faces and the Thread count and responses. And I always pick the ones with the most responses to go to. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on June 6, 2005, at 16:53:56
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by so on June 6, 2005, at 0:30:22
So, I also noticed that you don't have your Babblemail turned on. Why if you don't mind my asking. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by so on June 6, 2005, at 22:14:40
In reply to Re: what others want to know about » so, posted by Phillipa on June 6, 2005, at 16:52:26
> And how would a sex link send you to Babble?
I've not a clue. That's why I say, referer information can be confusing. Each of the sites represented far less than one percent of all referals, and that is only among identifiable referals, but they still appeared in the top 30. I didn't spend much time exploring the sites to see how they might refer to this one. For all I know, one way sites build traffic to theirs is to have bots crawl the web from their URL, sending large numbers of visits through their hidden link script to other sites, so their site will appear on referer lists. Or maybe people with interests in bestiality also have an interest in mental health?
Posted by so on June 6, 2005, at 22:17:31
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by Phillipa on June 6, 2005, at 16:53:56
> So, I also noticed that you don't have your Babblemail turned on. Why if you don't mind my asking. Fondly, Phillipa
never explored how to set it up, and other reasons. It might take time I would rather spend otherwise.
Posted by Phillipa on June 6, 2005, at 22:24:40
In reply to Re: what others want to know about » Phillipa, posted by so on June 6, 2005, at 22:17:31
So, It takes no time at all to turn on Babblemail. I'm surprised you didn't see it when you registered. Go to the registration page and you will see that there is a place right under where you register your name and password. Babblemail is turned on unless you turn it off. If Babblemail is on you can talk with others without fear of being blocked. And if it's on your name will light up in blue instead of the black that yours is now. It's so simple. I would think you might like to continue conversations in private at times. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2005, at 1:31:00
In reply to Re: what others want to know about » so, posted by Phillipa on June 6, 2005, at 16:52:26
> I don't much like the idea of the post counter.
> If there was one there is the temptation to go 'my post was viewed 100 times and I only got 2 responses!!!'
> It shifts the focus from what you get to what might have been.Although now people may just compare how many responses they get with how many others get...
> Are lurkers visits logged?
>
> alexandra_kNeither program has tried to take into account whether readers were also posters.
--
> uncoordinated use of a mouse and cursor selection system.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
> Usually, cookie information or other methods only count unique views, they don't count repeated visits by the same person.
It does depend on the method...
> The more useful information to me is an understanding of board members' ability to quickly and accurately answer my technical questions
Wouldn't their actual answers be the best indication of that?
> Comparisons to previous years are flawed because admin changed to a different counting method, but if views in Urchin are the same as views counted under the previous system...
They're not, it's a different method.
> in readership analysis, understanding the needs and interests of those who don't stay long and who don't volunteer responses about why or how they use a publication is as important or more important than the views of vocal readers who spend more time with a publication.
>
> soIMO, the former are important, but not necessarily as important or more important than the latter.
--
> there is one site I visit that uses ... the Thread count and responses. And I always pick the ones with the most responses to go to.
>
> PhillipaThe ones with the most responses, or the ones that have been viewed the most often? Here, there's a list of recent responses rather than a count of all responses...
Bob
Posted by so on June 7, 2005, at 15:10:02
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2005, at 1:31:00
> > uncoordinated use of a mouse and cursor selection system.
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
I contemplated other phrasings, but I've never been that embarassed by difficulties I have coordinateing hand motions with cursor motions in the context of sometimes small spaces on a monitor, so I thought people would read it the same way. Ususally lack of coordination can be attributed to dust and lint inside the mouse, so when I say my mouse is uncoordinated it usually means it needs to be cleaned. My mouse never takes offense at being cleaned.Other phrasing seemed so ponderous and not neccessarily any more protective of the outside chance a person might feel put down by a recognition of the general difficulty may people have using a particular technology. -- "Views that could be attributed to problems involving coordination of a mouse in the context of a site's graphic use interface"
It seemed far less likely to put anybody down than would calling their laws "hypocricy", "a joke" or "pathetic"
Posted by justyourlaugh on June 11, 2005, at 23:18:39
In reply to Re: what others want to know about, posted by so on June 7, 2005, at 15:10:02
how hurt would i feel if i knew no one looked at my post...this way the room for the ego is not cornerd..
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.