|
|
Post by Richard on Apr 29, 2007 15:08:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jons on Apr 29, 2007 15:18:41 GMT
Thanks Richard! I'm going to see if I can try to reach 2000 post before Stephany does.... Too late!  |
|
|
|
Post by jons on May 2, 2007 13:58:42 GMT
This what my radar found on the moon:  Thats enough of my radar! Although I did pick up aliens on it! Unfortunately the first thing they saw was the video of George Bush dancing, which lead them to the conclusion there was no intelligent life on the planet so they went off to look elsewhere!  |
|
|
|
Post by Stephany on Jun 5, 2007 19:01:37 GMT
Further to my previous post, I can now confirm that we have smashed the previous record for the number of posts in one day. From midnight to midnight, the total was 247, beating the previous record by more than 33% Roger I can't remember what happened that particular "record day". I wonder if we got close to this record since then.  ...and how about the May number of registrations? I'm curious to know if the number of registrants has increased since the CW tour started. |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jun 5, 2007 19:27:22 GMT
Hi Stephany,
Nope, 247 posts on 11th April is still our busiest day ever. The next day, 213 was the only other occasion on which posts exceeded 200.
The total number of posts for the whole of May was 2732, a daily average of just over 88. April was our busiest month ever with a total of 3506 posts, giving a daily average of almost 117.
The number of people registering as members has been accelerating in recent months. In February, March and April, 15, 15 and 14 registered respectively. Only 8 joined us during May.
Roger (who has been here forever!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephany on Jun 5, 2007 19:34:26 GMT
Hi Roger, Many thanks for the figures. I'm not sure the number of posts is that important in itself but it's still interesting to compare it with the forum's level of activity. Best wishes, Stephany |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jun 5, 2007 19:43:08 GMT
I'm not sure the number of posts is that important in itself On it's own, no it isn't, but in conjunction with numerous other statistics, it can be very helpful in assessing the level of interest in the forum as a whole. Anyway, I am one of those sad individuals who find stats fascinating. I should get out more, I know!  Roger |
|
|
|
Post by grant on Oct 31, 2008 15:59:53 GMT
Hi Roger or Dave (or anyone who can solve the riddle  ) As some of you know, I keep a record of the total number of posts and when I logged off yesterday morning around 9am, the counter was showing 74201Imagine my surprise, then, when I logged on this afternoon to find the counter reading 74432. However, when I searched back, I found that I had only 115 posts to read, so, my question is. Where have the other 116 come from?!!Best wishes Grant |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Oct 31, 2008 21:42:23 GMT
Hi Grant, Yes, I noticed that too. At the moment, I can offer no explanation. I will see if the Security Log offers any clues but I need to catch up with the real posts before spending ages trying to locate the non-existant ones! Roger |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Oct 31, 2008 23:01:28 GMT
Well, the Security Log does offer a clue but it still leaves something of a mystery. All I can say for now is that one of the Moderators recounted the board totals at 8.42am on Thursday (GMT) as he is perfectly entitled to do if he feels so inclined. If the stats were wrong, this would have corrected them but I don't understand why they were wrong or what prompted a moderator to utilise that rarely used tool. I don't think there is any cause for concern but I will investigate!  Roger |
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Nov 1, 2008 18:11:17 GMT
Hello Grant and Roger! I recounted the board totals after I spotted some of the threads on the Media board were in the wrong order. That was a separate mystery that has now been fully explained!  Richard |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Nov 1, 2008 18:33:04 GMT
Thanks Richard. No doubt that is what caused the number of posts to increase, presumably to the correct number, but we have no idea why they were wrong in the first place. Sorry Grant, I don't think we can explain this one.
Roger
|
|
|
|
Post by Dean McCarten on Nov 1, 2008 19:08:36 GMT
Thanks Richard. No doubt that is what caused the number of posts to increase, presumably to the correct number, but we have no idea why they were wrong in the first place. Sorry Grant, I don't think we can explain this one. Roger I have an idea: the stats will not account for deleted post etc so is why the stats appear to be incorrect Hope This Helps Dean |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Nov 1, 2008 20:02:47 GMT
Thanks Dean but the total number of posts shown in the Info Centre should be an accurate reflection of the true number forumwide. If posts are deleted, the total automatically reduces accordingly (even though members individual postcounters do not). So I still don't know but I don't think I'll lose too much sleep over it!  Roger |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Nov 4, 2008 0:02:48 GMT
With the possible exception of Grant, I doubt if anyone will be remotely interested in this but I will post it anyway! If you have noticed a small reduction in the total number of posts in the Info Centre this evening, it is nothing to worry about. I have merely deleted 12 tracer threads as part of our housekeeping exercise. Okay, who said "What's a tracer thread"? Okay, I'll tell you... Occasionally, members start a new thread and we feel that it might be more appropriate if it were moved to a different board. When it is moved, we have the option of leaving a tracer thread in its place which says, "This topic has been moved to by [name of moderator]. In other words, it enables members to "trace" where the thread has gone. See? You remember seeing them now, don't you? 
That can be helpful for a short time, at least until the original poster has seen the new location but, from then on, it serves no useful purpose and so we reckon to delete them.
So now ya know! 
Roger |
|
)
