Forum Menbership- 3.5m registered only 56k members survived?..... Why?

[Aikidoka]

To be honest, I never expected that there were 2.7 million lost Bitcointalk accounts out of the total 3.5 million. It's a huge number of accounts but I'm really curious about the statistics from the past few years. I wonder how many accounts were active in 2022 and 2021. Is the number decreasing?

IMO, I don't believe the forum will die but if that would continue to happen in the coming years perhaps we should consider promoting it to attract more traffic. In another way, we could make slight changes to the rules to minimize the number of people losing their accounts or getting banned. It seems like many members have given up once they lost their Bitcointalk account or faced a ban and that's just my opinion. I'm genuinely curious about how we can increase traffic and make this community larger and more active.

[1714515716]

1714515716

[1714515716]

1714515716

[LoyceV]

When something like this comes up, the bullies and DT oppressors avoid participating in the conversation.

Who exactly are you pointing at? Name them, so they can read this topic
Also: if you believe someone abuses DT, exclude them. Others may or may not agree with you, but at least DT will be a tad more decentralized again.

[jokers10]

To be honest, I never expected that there were 2.7 million lost Bitcointalk accounts out of the total 3.5 million. It's a huge number of accounts but I'm really curious about the statistics from the past few years. I wonder how many accounts were active in 2022 and 2021. Is the number decreasing?
...

It looks overwhelming only if not to look at other forums stats. It is normal when total majority of signed up never write a word. It is the same on a majority of forums. There is a big bunch of those who have a single question, they come on a forum, write one single post with their question and then never return and usually even don't read answers, because they find that answer somewhere else faster. So those ones who leave at least several posts are a total minority of signed up, and those ones who stay are the total minority of those ones who leave at least several posts. It is normal!

[Flexystar]

It could be one of those up trend and downtrend cycle over the years. I mean initially it was obvious that forum seen huge registrations because Bitcoin was new and everyone wanted to know about it. Slowly it might have happened that BitcoinTalk word search became very popular, mouth to mouth publicity happened, ICO projects were booming and people wanted to know genuine projects and as far as resources concerned, forum was the best place to place your bet.

Over the time, many other forums emerged too. Social media coverage regarding Bitcoin is off the roof so most of the info that a normal user want can be availed from multiple sources now.

Not sure what or who constitute to those 56K active users but that could be none other than developers, technical people who wants to explore, students who are doing masters in Blockchain, and most of the contributors from services section and bounty section.

Do we have BPIP feature which tells us which section is active in terms of number of user engagements? (Can't find it on BPIP.org). May be that can shade some light on the matter.

[CryptSafe]

Unfriendly discussion enviromment    - 5 (14.7%)

If they say unfriendly environment, could it be the way and manner members are being attack when they make post, create topics, make complaints. Most times ones experience could make them have the thoughts of been attacked by high rank members and that would result to them thinking the environment is not friendly and they eventually leave.

DT Members opression    - 8 (23.5%)

Well as for this, I really think the DT final verdict is based on consensus. So therefore if there be any judgement passed, it must have been scrutinized by the DT members thoroughly before it is enacted but if their is anything else, they should be able to come up plane to say it.

The Merit system    - 7 (20.6%)

Although this is a crucial part in ranking but one needs to be up and doing before they could be awarded merits as a result of their inputs and contributions.  As important as it is, it paves way for growth and applauding ones efforts here but it seems most posts are that are due or should be merited are not seen and likely low efforts post been merited maybe this is the reason. It would not make any sense when someone puts efforts to adding more value and not being recognized then another with no much efforts merited. May be this might be amongst the challenges which needs to be looked into.

[JollyGood]

In principle what you say is correct but looking at the bigger picture things are not as straight forward as that. For example, there are DT members that are abusing their position by using their feedbacks and exclusions for revenge purposes (and there is the matter of cliques). I think that part of the scenario has not been mentioned nor discussed in a wider manner in this thread because it probably has and still does play a part in both new member and old member retention.

DT Members opression    - 8 (23.5%)

Well as for this, I really think the DT final verdict is based on consensus. So therefore if there be any judgement passed, it must have been scrutinized by the DT members thoroughly before it is enacted but if their is anything else, they should be able to come up plane to say it.

[CryptSafe]

In principle what you say is correct but looking at the bigger picture things are not as straight forward as that. For example, there are DT members that are abusing their position by using their feedbacks and exclusions for revenge purposes (and there is the matter of cliques). I think that part of the scenario has not been mentioned nor discussed in a wider manner in this thread because it probably has and still does play a part in both new member and old member retention.

DT Members opression    - 8 (23.5%)

Well as for this, I really think the DT final verdict is based on consensus. So therefore if there be any judgement passed, it must have been scrutinized by the DT members thoroughly before it is enacted but if their is anything else, they should be able to come up plane to say it.

I get a bigger picture of what you are talking about and please correct me if I am wrong. When you talk about revenge do you possibly talk about a fight back by these members to undo some members here in the sense that they victimize, intimidate and keep harassing members who  gave them tough time on their way to the top or possibly their clique members just as you have said. If this be the case then there are lots really happening here which would need attention and also be sorted out.
Who knows how many members that must have been affected by this act.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

There are many use cases - from short time FUD or spam to one-time business, scams (including rinse and repeat strategies), multi-ing, ... name it - people would create just another account on the forum because, you know, it's for free.

Oh, man....I can't tell you how many one-time use accounts I've seen all over the forum (actually you probably have as well), whether it's to troll someone, make a scam accusation, or like you mentioned to spam and all the other reasons. 

I also think a lot of accounts that got created during the various bull markets went dormant once bitcoin started to slide, and the late 2017 to early 2018 period comes to mind immediately.  There were a ton of new accounts created to participate in the ICO bounties, and I don't think many of those people stuck around to the present day.

I didn't think there were 'only' 58k active accounts, but when you think about it that's still a pretty high number for an old-school discussion forum.  If signature campaigns went away, though?  I bet that number would drop off a cliff in a heartbeat.

[skarais]

~~~

I didn't think there were 'only' 58k active accounts, but when you think about it that's still a pretty high number for an old-school discussion forum.  If signature campaigns went away, though?  I bet that number would drop off a cliff in a heartbeat.

Of course, it didn't take long for us to see the difference in these statistics because the impact of signature campaigns and bounty campaigns on forum user activity has a large correlation.

I still remember when thousands of users became inactive when the forum implemented merit system, at that time many users feel difficulty getting rank and the rest had to become newbie when admin also adjusting the rules for Jr. rank. Even when several running campaigns finish at the same time, there will also be a reduction in the number of active users.

[Igebotz]

When something like this comes up, the bullies and DT oppressors avoid participating in the conversation.

Who exactly are you pointing at? Name them, so they can read this topic
Also: if you believe someone abuses DT, exclude them. Others may or may not agree with you, but at least DT will be a tad more decentralized again.

No one in particular, but I'm sure they've already read my post, but I'm not sure I had anyone in mind; I was just trying to light up the woods and see what the community thinks. 

My ~ is a drop in the ocean.

I didn't think there were 'only' 58k active accounts, but when you think about it that's still a pretty high number for an old-school discussion forum.  If signature campaigns went away, though?  I bet that number would drop off a cliff in a heartbeat.

theymos is well aware of this and that's why he is not letting it go anytime soon....

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

IMO, I don't believe the forum will die but if that would continue to happen in the coming years perhaps we should consider promoting it to attract more traffic. In another way, we could make slight changes to the rules to minimize the number of people losing their accounts or getting banned. It seems like many members have given up once they lost their Bitcointalk account or faced a ban and that's just my opinion. I'm genuinely curious about how we can increase traffic and make this community larger and more active.

Very nicely said, of recent I have been against the rate at which accounts get banned or destroyed from the forum. We should introduced some new laws like instead of strictly banning people for mistakes they deliberately or not deliberately make, we can make them lose their signature privilege for some amount of months or years. We tried it with highly productive members when caught with plagiarism so we should introduced same rules for other offends or look for other solution if we want to keep this forum alive. We drive away lots of talents that would have added to the community when we just banned them out of the forum for been ignorant.

Only members who care about the forum read the Meta, so I wasn't expecting anything close to 100 votes, especially since only 364 of the 7765 active members in the last 30 days posted on the Meta, so I'm not surprised. We only have a bunch of signature/bounty spammers who are more active than the ones who care about the forum's welfare. 34 votes is a significant number on a Meta, in my opinion.

People not visiting meta doesn't mean they don't care about the forum, there are no conversation here like other part of the board, at some point I stopped visiting meta and the reputation board but later returned to visiting. If you want to enjoy the forum visit other lively boards. We're here to learn about Bitcoin and other industry related things, those things can't be learnt on the meta board.  Also we have those that avoid this board because they feel they'll be judged wrongly of fishing for merits when they post on meta so they just focus on boards they're can comment freely without been misjudged.

[JollyGood]

Oh, man....I can't tell you how many one-time use accounts I've seen all over the forum (actually you probably have as well), whether it's to troll someone, make a scam accusation, or like you mentioned to spam and all the other reasons.

I have seen several of them during my time here too. Many of those types of accounts used for trolling or one time anonymous scam accusations fade away never to be heard from again.

I also think a lot of accounts that got created during the various bull markets went dormant once bitcoin started to slide, and the late 2017 to early 2018 period comes to mind immediately.  There were a ton of new accounts created to participate in the ICO bounties, and I don't think many of those people stuck around to the present day.

I would not be surprised if the biggest spike in the number of members signing up in the forum occurred when ICOs were at their peak. It was an absolutely manic flurry of activity when investors were lining up to part with their cash to invest using ETH and the bounties were attracting people from across the spectrum.

I didn't think there were 'only' 58k active accounts, but when you think about it that's still a pretty high number for an old-school discussion forum.  If signature campaigns went away, though?  I bet that number would drop off a cliff in a heartbeat.

If an active member was categorised as one on the basis they last logged in 28 days ago the number would be different to say that of members signing in 90 or 180 days ago. That definition of the word active is something that does not have consensus therefore can be misleading. I would still look at that alleged 58,000 active members as debatable.

[Igebotz]

Only members who care about the forum read the Meta, so I wasn't expecting anything close to 100 votes, especially since only 364 of the 7765 active members in the last 30 days posted on the Meta, so I'm not surprised. We only have a bunch of signature/bounty spammers who are more active than the ones who care about the forum's welfare. 34 votes is a significant number on a Meta, in my opinion.

People not visiting meta doesn't mean they don't care about the forum, there are no conversation here like other part of the board, at some point I stopped visiting meta and the reputation board but later returned to visiting. If you want to enjoy the forum visit other lively boards. We're here to learn about Bitcoin and other industry related things, those things can't be learnt on the meta board.  Also we have those that avoid this board because they feel they'll be judged wrongly of fishing for merits when they post on meta so they just focus on boards they're can comment freely without been misjudged.

Meta serves as the forum's information/notice board, where you can get forum-related updates/complaints without having to comment; most of the time, reading is better than writing. I find it strange that someone would stay a week without visiting the Meta board to see if there is an update or the latest development. I understand that just a few users read the reputation board these days because it has turned to "Is he a cheater?", "as I suspect"? Kind of like a board.


There has been a general imgur image server issue, and only those that read the Meta know how to solve it because the solution was only posted here since it is related to the forum and not a single board.

If someone is sincerely interested in anything, he will read and look into it but i understand your point

If an active member was categorised as one on the basis they last logged in 28 days ago the number would be different to say that of members signing in 90 or 180 days ago. That definition of the word active is something that does not have consensus therefore can be misleading. I would still look at that alleged 58,000 active members as debatable.

bpip.org scrapes data from accounts that logged in (whether making a post or not) in the last 30 days as 58K active members, however when you drill down to only users who made at least one post in the last 30 days, the figure is substantially lower than the initial value of 58k from bpip.org. Someone posted it in this thread, and I'm too lazy to look for it.(It was roughly 21k at the time)

[JollyGood]

There is no need to correct you because you understood the broader point I was making. Of the innumerable aspects and permutations of what can be said about the reasons about the numbers (or alleged numbers) of member retentions here in the forum, I think one them could include cliques and trolls.

For example, if an average member who has been around the forum several years can be the victim of a vendetta where perpetrators have created threads to post the trust list of said user and then asking those that trusted the user to remove/exclude purely on the basis of flimsy or highly dubious excuses but using that as an opportunity to exact some form of revenge as the real ulterior motive, then what chance would a newbie have when faced with a similar or sustained attack?

As I said, the above scenario could be just one of many innumerable reasons why there is an issue with member retention within the forum but to discuss every possible reason about what is wrong would take days upon days to go through therefore to that degree I am happy to see and read thorugh many of the posts here as it brings a side array of opinions to the table.

I get a bigger picture of what you are talking about and please correct me if I am wrong. When you talk about revenge do you possibly talk about a fight back by these members to undo some members here in the sense that they victimize, intimidate and keep harassing members who  gave them tough time on their way to the top or possibly their clique members just as you have said. If this be the case then there are lots really happening here which would need attention and also be sorted out.
Who knows how many members that must have been affected by this act.

[Jet Cash]

I probably contributed to the defunct accountr totals. I have at least six alts that I no longer use. From memory, I have Talk merit that I created to support my Fit to Talk project here, Kuffy to protect one of my othe sobriquets, Baronets for my domain name business, Jet Aid for some sort of help project, I forget which, Flash Cunt was a special for Tman - who remembers him. There may be a couple more. One of those was an experiment to see hoiw fast you could work the system to achieve member status, and I suspec that it still holds the record. You have to get the timing right, and aschieve merits and activity regularly to do it.

[LoyceV]

My ~ is a drop in the ocean.

That's the beauty of decentralization (or democracy for that matter): the same applies to everyone else. If everyone excludes anyone who they think uses the Trust system incorrectly, the result should be a more or less acceptable average. Or we're screwed big time.

[Igebotz]

For example, if an average member who has been around the forum several years can be the victim of a vendetta where perpetrators have created threads to post the trust list of said user and then asking those that trusted the user to remove/exclude purely on the basis of flimsy or highly dubious excuses but using that as an opportunity to exact some form of revenge as the real ulterior motive, then what chance would a newbie have when faced with a similar or sustained attack?

This story sounds familiar......

My ~ is a drop in the ocean.

That's the beauty of decentralization (or democracy for that matter): the same applies to everyone else. If everyone excludes anyone who they think uses the Trust system incorrectly, the result should be a more or less acceptable average. Or we're screwed big time.

I'm sure Theymos is now rethinking his decision--decentralization in the hands of a sadist is a dreadful weapon.

It's been a long time since I've seen somebody kicked off the DT for misusing the trust system; I've seen a profile painted red just because a DT member thought his comments was a joke. 

[LoyceV]

It's been a long time since I've seen somebody kicked off the DT for misusing the trust system; I've seen a profile painted red just because a DT member thought his comments was a joke.

That's (also) on you: by not excluding users who's judgement you don't trust, you're not doing what a good DT1-member should do. See dtview: at the bottom of the list are 9 DT1-members who are "kicked off" by other DT1-members. Theymos doesn't (have to) interfere here, it's up to DT1 to keep DT1 clean.

[Igebotz]

It's been a long time since I've seen somebody kicked off the DT for misusing the trust system; I've seen a profile painted red just because a DT member thought his comments was a joke.

That's (also) on you: by not excluding users who's judgement you don't trust, you're not doing what a good DT1-member should do. See dtview: at the bottom of the list are 9 DT1-members who are "kicked off" by other DT1-members. Theymos doesn't (have to) interfere here, it's up to DT1 to keep DT1 clean.

You are right.

Interesting read and I saw some surprising names being kicked out of DT- But i felt that the energy is not longer the same, other DT members seems not to care anymore sorry to say

[LoyceV]

i felt that the energy is not longer the same, other DT members seems not to care anymore sorry to say

It's been like that for years. If a few people don't care, it doesn't matter much. But if too many people don't care:

we're screwed big time.