5009 ILP members (69.10%) have posted no or less than 10 posts. Not more than 1435 ILP members (19,80%) have posted 10-99 posts. But merely 805 ILP members (11.10%) have posted 100 or more than 100 posts.
Reminds me of Zipf’s law, I wonder if it follows the same pattern. I would guess that nearly all* communities roughly track a similar distribution of participation rate.
*I’d expect communities that don’t would be what you might call ‘non-organic communities’:communities where some constraining mechanism encourages a different distribution pattern, e.g. an ongoing and dominant forum game that requires roughly equal participation (e.g. moves made in a game of Diplomacy), or a rotating roles that dictate post frequency (e.g. a rotating role for someone who moves a group through a set agenda), or some external motivation for participation (e.g. a class forum where participation is required for a grade).
It would also be interesting (but harder) to see how it works based on word count; I’m not particularly high on post count, but I think my total words and words/post rate is pretty high.
According to my counter machine I have posted 5077 posts, but according to my section “user’s posts” I have posted 5081 posts. So the counter machine has not always done its job perfectly. If it had done its job perfectly, it would have shown me the number “5081”. In reality I have posted even more than 5081 posts, but those more posts have been deleted accidently by a moderator.
Anyone who registers here is automatically a member even if they have never posted or no longer use the site. Go and access the
most recent pages of new members and most of them will have zero posts and will never be seen again even though they are still
classed as members. But banning them would be a waste of time since you cannot ban someone from a site they are no longer on
This is such a trivial issue it cannot be taken seriously. Because how often a member posts or does not post is entirely up to them
There is some times a discrepancy in post counts because some
may be double posts or deletions so the figures will reflect this
Most of all ILP members have one post, as Alf has pointed out:
The more posts I have, the more errors the counter machine makes.
And now: According to my counter machine I have posted 5078 posts, but according to my section “user’s posts” I have posted 5084 posts. So the counter machine has not always done its job perfectly. If it had done its job perfectly, it would have shown me the number “5084”. In reality I have posted even more than 5084 posts, but those more posts have been deleted accidently by a moderator.
Yes, certainly. Therefore my question: Should the memberships of those members who post no or merely a few posts be terminated? Till now there are 2 “yes”, 5 “no”, 2 “I don’t care” answers.
First of all, the number of posts says nothing about the quality of the posts.
You have often posted non-philosophical posts on this philosophy forum, while James has posted philosophical posts on this philosophy forum. This speaks in favor of James, because this forum is, or at least should be, a philosophy forum.
Yes, you don’t know. Who said anything about books or about people who are not able to write?
And because you addressed the people “who do not or cannot write anymore”: why should they write a book? They “do not or cannot write anymore” - these are your own words!
It’s an example in reply to your comment on peoples posts, that’s like advocating for censorship. I don’t think people’s words need to be deleted, books burned, art destroyed, etc.
I do occasionally delete accounts with 0 posts. I don’t know what the point of deleting accounts for users who have only a few posts would be, if they want to come back and pick it up shouldn’t they be allowed to?
Is the point just to show more accurate/interesting stats, e.g. monthly active users?
I see nothing wrong with that. Rant is invisible to anyone without an account in order to exclude search engines and potential employers from concluding things about the site based on its contents. If someone puts in the effort to see it, they’ve assumed the risk.