|
|
Post by shoshin on Sept 11, 2015 11:08:10 GMT
According to the most recent stats, twelve members have logged on over the past 24 hours, which isn't too bad. But there have been more than 200 other visitors. It's also very possible that more members are viewing, but there isn't really much incentive to log in unless you see a post that you really want to comment on. In fact, the only reason I log in every day, whether or not I find something to post about, is so that one more member is added to the daily stats. At the same time, you have to be logged in to actively participate in the forum. So we need to get members to log in more often, and we ideally (arguably?) need to get more members. I wouldn't be in favour of restricting the site to members only, because disseminating news and views about ABBA should surely be part of our 'remit'. However, the stats also show that four or five of our threads have way more views than any others; the main image threads. So, would it be an idea to restrict those four or five image threads to members only? Firstly, this would mean that our 'lazier' members would log in more often, and therefore may be more likely to become active once they are logged in. Secondly we would gain new members, since the sign up process is quite straightforward. Meanwhile, those who do not wish to become members will still have access to all of the news, info and discussion threads etc. It might even be argued that, given the effort that Fafner, shotdowninaction, Monica and others put into the image threads, gently dissuading visitors who can't even be bothered to join the forum from enjoying and swiping the pics would be no great loss. Not saying there are no downsides to this. In particular, we may get an influx of half-hearted members, causing admin and moderation hassle. But in that case we just reverse the decision and blame shoshin  |
|
|
|
Post by Fafner on Sept 11, 2015 11:25:47 GMT
Bad idea. You can't force people to participate, and then what's the point? If the forum doesn't grow naturally, then there's nothing you can do.
And personally I don't mind at all if people are not commenting on my posts. If they bother to click and view what I post in the first place, it means that they are at least somewhat interested/like it - and that's enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by HOMETIME on Sept 11, 2015 12:58:47 GMT
If the forum doesn't grow naturally, then there's nothing you can do. That's the sad truth. In some ways, social media has accelerated the demise of the fan forum - I think this is true of fans of most artists, not just ABBA. Even if you accumulate the traffic on this site and the other forum, it still doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Probably best to enjoy each forum for what it uniquely offers. Although I'm probably among the "lazier" fans, I willingly contribute on those few moments where I might have something to say. I don't have stocks of images to contribute (anything I have in my folders has been seen umpteen times before), so there's zilch I can contribute on the photographic front. I also suspect that people (like me) who are members of both forums, won't swipe either images or topics from one to post on the other. So that creates additional limits. Yes, it would be nice if more people actively engaged. But it's hard to know how to encourage that when there is so little new to discuss. |
|
|
|
Post by shoshin on Sept 11, 2015 14:34:44 GMT
Hmmm.. I've never viewed forums (or websites more generally) as being passive receptacles of passing traffic. Site design and quality of content can make a forum look either welcoming or moribund. If two hundred people are visiting a forum every day and only two or three of them (often the same two or three) are seeing anything at all, anywhere on it, that they feel is worth engaging with, it seems a counsel of despair to hold that nothing could be done to change this. There remain loads of forums, of a far more niche nature than celebrating one of the biggest selling groups of all time, that manage to maintain a thriving active community. This is why I try to create quirky threads, hoping to catch a lurker's eye. Though the number of replies they get does tend to support your view rather than mine! I'm not looking for hundreds of active members, but there's a quorum below which the downward spiral becomes self perpetuating, making the forum less and less attractive. It's like I never go into a clothes shop if it's empty, and often think that if I ran such a shop I would pay a few people to mill around in it from time to time. Eventually, lonely forums do tend to remind me of The Chestnut Tree in 1984, with the last of the battered and beaten old guard recycling tales of the good old days  |
|
|
|
Post by HOMETIME on Sept 11, 2015 15:04:05 GMT
For those of us of a more discursive bent, a sea of pictures won't often inspire a response post. My personal preference is for discussing the music, the story of the group or speculating on what might have been a better single choice etc. I'll happily discuss the costumes, videos and album/single sleeves, and in that context, I might even root out an image to illustrate a point. But I mostly tend to be a passive observer of images.
It's all subjective and hypothetical and whatnot... but in the absence of new music or developments in the group to discuss, we're going to find it increasingly difficult to find discussion topics on a long-defunct group. Especially if there are just the same few people involved.
I think we have to keep plugging away, basically. There may be a small flurry of posting when people receive their SGO box sets but even that will be short-lived. The eventual publication of CMP's updated book should give us plenty to chat about - but that's still a while away. We need a new release from ABBA or one or more of its former members to really generate discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by shoshin on Sept 11, 2015 15:18:59 GMT
For those of us of a more discursive bent, a sea of pictures won't often inspire a response post. My personal preference is for discussing the music, the story of the group or speculating on what might have been a better single choice etc. I'll happily discuss the costumes, videos and album/single sleeves, and in that context, I might even root out an image to illustrate a point. But I mostly tend to be a passive observer of images... Yes, me too. But the images are clearly getting the casual traffic. My objective wasn't so much to try to get more image comments, but rather to encourage visitors using the forum just for image viewing to become more active on other threads. A bit like, to take a purely hypothetical example, making it easy to become a registered supporter of a political party in the hope that this may lead to full membership later |
|
|
|
Post by Roxanne on Oct 7, 2015 14:50:12 GMT
I understand what you are saying Martin - there are a lot of visitors who come simply to browse images. The stats on different threads show that to be true.
I have no problem with people browsing without joining - although there really does seem to be an excessive amount of that going on - and as you say, if people had to actually log in to view the main image threads, it may encourage a little more activity from members while they are here - plus it may encourage more guests to join.
While this is not something I would have considered before, I am thinking about it for the above reasons - plus, when this site gets over a certain number of views per month, we either end up with banner ads being displayed, or I have to pay more money to keep them away.
From that perspective, guests are using up the monthly quota of views that I pay for - while not adding to the forum numbers, or contributing to the forum.
I don't mind the forum getting more than the quota each month, but that quota should be for members in my opinion.
Why should members have to put up with banner ads because of guests popping in and out ?
On the other hand, I don't want to annoy members by making them log in each time they want to check out new images added.
So, I will take all this into consideration and make a decision - but I do welcome any further feedback about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roxanne on Oct 9, 2015 6:51:34 GMT
According to the most recent stats, twelve members have logged on over the past 24 hours, which isn't too bad. But there have been more than 200 other visitors. In view of these stats, I am truly tempted to restrict the main image threads to members. Thoughts on my previous post ? |
|
|
|
Post by shoshin on Oct 9, 2015 8:38:39 GMT
The stats for yesterday (13 members 208 visitors) are very similar to the above snapshot for one day last month. I would still be in favour, for the reasons previously mentioned. I am a member of a guitar forum that restricts its 'marketplace' section in this way, so that people interested in buying, selling and valuing their instrument don't get all of the benefits without any effort. Indeed, this kind of restriction often also comes with an imposed number of thread contributions that have to be made by the newbie before the section is unlocked. This would be a step too far for ABBAchat imho, but it's a feature that demonstrates that forum restrictions have their logic. Fafner is against the idea, and he contributes many of the images. In cases where motivation for posting images includes the commendable desire for the maximum number of people to see them, then I guess that an argument against the proposal would be that restricting these threads may discourage such contributors. One other consideration, though not a major one in my opinion, is that the site may become less popular overall, in terms of various search engine results, if the robots can't drill down to the images. It's an easily reversible step, and easily measurable in terms of success/failure; it could be tried for a month or so and then assessed based on number of members who are logging in and number of contributions (total page views will of course decrease). As you say, we could do with more opinions about this from as many current members as possible. Regarding the cost of keeping the site running and banner free, have you considered a donate button, maybe embedded in a sticky thread? Many of us will have balances sloshing around in PayPal, so I'm sure a few dollars would find their way to you  |
|
|
|
Post by Roxanne on Oct 9, 2015 13:58:27 GMT
Fafner, HOMETIME, shoshin, Thanks for your further input about this Martin. As you say, we could try it for month, see how it goes - and then change it back if it doesn't seem to be working out. I would certainly consider giving it a go - but I would like further discussion before going ahead. As I mentioned above, I don't want to annoy members by making them log in to look at images, if it's not something they usually do. As for asking for donations, it's not something I had thought about or considered. When I started this forum, I was quite happy to accept the cost of a domain name and to keep banner ads away, and it never would have occurred to me to ask for contributions. It also didn't occur to me that we'd go above 50,000 views a month so quickly and easily ! lol I will think about that suggestion Martin - but of course the extra cost for no ads would only happen if I don't restrict access. So, I await further input about this - if the decision is to not restrict access, then I will consider donations - otherwise, we'll trial the members only image pages. Cheers Roxy
|
|
|
|
Post by Roxanne on Oct 9, 2015 14:57:50 GMT
I have added tagging to the forum - sometimes Quoting is not enough as it only alerts one member. I have added a little pop up message to the forum for new visitors: "Welcome to ABBAChat ! Please feel free to have a browse. If you like what you see and decide to visit us again, please join the forum. It's easy !" You never know  |
|
|
|
Post by mwilson on Oct 11, 2015 1:29:39 GMT
shoshin, Fafner, HOMETIME, Roxanne, I am definitely in favor of more participation on this forum. I created a thread about such non-communicative tendencies here not too long ago. However I don't think restricting threads to members only would be a good idea. I think we'd actually stop gaining new members, because it is apparently these four or five photo threads that are attracting most of the people. If they never see them, they won't join. Let's face it, most people aren't coming here for news. If we can get non-photo discussions going, great. I have noticed the unique threads you have created, Martin, and I very much enjoy them. But even these are responded to by the same very few individuals. How do we change that? Can we? I think so, but only if our small group of active members talks among itself.
I don't think we need new content or music from the group to have lively discussion. Personally, I have very little interest in yet another box set, re-issue or live recording and I definitely do not want to hear Abba do new music now. I've read Palm's "Bright Lights Dark Shadows" and I loved it, but what more is there to say? To me, on Abba4Ever there was a community of Abba fans who always had something to say about what Abba meant to them, either in the moment or in their lives. Here, we don't have that as much. New people, new topics and more opinions expressed would probably change that. But as Fafner said, it has to be natural. I don't think we can force it.
I love the pictures. Even the various alternate shots from the same sessions and concerts perk up my day a bit. I, like Hometime, stopped adding them because I don't have the resources to provide new ones. Some new members have lately and that's great. But if we're capable of appreciating them, if we know enough to care about the difference between them, we who are members can say more. If we talk, maybe the guests will want to talk. Then maybe they'll join.
And I can do my part and start creating more of these discussion threads I've been thinking of. And more of the polls and games help too because even if nothing groundbreaking is happening, we're talking to each other. A crowd draws a crowd. I, like Martin, rarely go into an empty store. And I certainly won't eat in an empty restaurant.
I love the pop-up you've added, Roxanne. I hope it works. I like the tagging too because the quotes get a little confusing when they start to pile up.
Let's keep this beautiful thing growing.
|
|
|
|
Post by HOMETIME on Oct 11, 2015 9:24:53 GMT
I agree with Damian (apart from the pop-up.... While I'm not convinced that it won't deter pressure-shy casual visitors, I'll gladly wait to be proven happily wrong).
I comment on the photos every so often but I'll also admit that it sometimes feels like I'm facing a deluge of photos. At one point recently, there was a full page of the same photo posted over and over. Now, I realise that had a lot to do with the contributor getting used to the forum's settings but I'll admit I backed away and waited for the situation to settle. Ultimately, though, I don't often have a lot to say about a given photo. If it's new to me or linked to a topic other than how pretty the subject is, I tend to have a bit more to say. I tried adding some photos recently myself so I realise how little traction they get (mostly none). I still think we might need to figure out how to add even a little discursive balance to the pretty pictures. But that's just me and the many other members must clearly feel differently.
It's a real shame that this should end up costing Roxanne money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ausfan on Oct 11, 2015 10:44:37 GMT
I agree with Damian (apart from the pop-up.... While I'm not convinced that it won't deter pressure-shy casual visitors, I'll gladly wait to be proven happily wrong). I gave the pop up some thought before adding it. It's only a small pop up and only appears the very first time someone visits the forum. If they visit again, it doesn't pop up again. Just a little encouragement to join - but doesn't keep bugging them |
|
|
|
Post by Roxanne on Oct 11, 2015 10:50:15 GMT
A few differing opinions. I think for now I will leave the forum as is. The little pop up may encourage a few to join - although as has been stated many times, you can't force people to participate. If the cost of keeping banner ads away increases too much, I may add that donate button at some point - but for now, it's not a major. I appreciate the input on this topic. If there are any further suggestions, be sure to add them here |
|
|
|
Post by Fafner on Oct 11, 2015 11:07:11 GMT
Roxanne, personally I don't mind the ads, and I feel like you shouldn't be paying from your own money just for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by chelseacharger on Oct 11, 2015 13:44:37 GMT
It's good that we have this discussion. Sometimes we forget how young this forum is so it's natural that it'll be still in the 'tweaking' stage. The two issues are getting visitors to become members and then members to become more pro-active. I wonder if a more prominent 'Welcome to the forum and sign up here' feature would help with the first? Maybe a small sub-section above the main boards? Looking at the Members list, it's surprising how many have made very few or no posts at all. There are even a few whose last visit was on their sign up day. Strange. Why become a member if only to ever view? The balance over discussion and picture threads is one over how this forum see's itself. A place to chat and debate, a gallery of photo's for fans to peruse and reminisce, an archived wealth of ABBA related information to look back on. That last one was a major reason why the loss of A4E stung so much. All of it gone (4E). I don't think there's a lot wrong that a little re-organisation wouldn't help. Sometimes folk need 'steering' in the right direction to what they might enjoy more. Pictures can actually stimulate discussion so I don't think they should be confined to the photo threads. Likewise discussion can be enhanced with a picture now and again. The same with Polls. It would be nice to see more debate on the Official Albums sub board and that may be another section that could be placed more prominently. I know it's been alluded to elsewhere that, in place of A4E, we now have two forums and how they operate alongside each other. There could be two schools of thought about this. One, that it is splitting the numbers that could be involved in one busier site. And Two, that 'more the merrier' is better, there's enough traffic for two and in light of A4E, there is at least a back up should any of these two unfortunately also fold.
You're doing a great job Roxy and mods. Much appreciated here. |
|
|
|
Post by HOMETIME on Oct 11, 2015 14:55:53 GMT
It's good that we have this discussion. Sometimes we forget how young this forum is so it's natural that it'll be still in the 'tweaking' stage. [...]
Pictures can actually stimulate discussion so I don't think they should be confined to the photo threads. Likewise discussion can be enhanced with a picture now and again. [...]
You're doing a great job Roxy and mods. Much appreciated here. These are big points. I agree that pictures can - and do - stimulate discussion. I also feel that they can sometimes quash it too. An enthusiastic flow of images can give us all something pretty to look at but I've lost count of the times I've wanted to jump in with a comment only for the moment to have passed in stream of subsequent images. If the images really were stimulating discussion, I doubt we'd be having this debate. It's all about balance, I think. A heated debate on a version of this topic happened some time ago on the other forum. A tantrum-driven period of quiet has evaporated and things are motoring along quite nicely. It should be noted that the main participants are members of both sites, which I think might suggest that there is an appetite for something meatier than is emerging on either site at the moment. I can't quite put my finger on what that might be but if people are visiting two separate forums on the same subject, it's clear they're interested in getting stuck in. Over yonder, there are still plenty of new images but the chat/picture balance is a lot better than it was (and, yes, I realise that is an entirely subjective view). Danny rightly alluded to the differences between the two sites: the other seems more discursive, while this seems more pictorial. Those are unique selling points for both and not to be sniffed at. If the picture/chat ratio is flipped here, what makes it uniquely attractive? For all the tender loving care that has gone into the creation of both sites, it would be a shame if it turned into a winner takes all scenario. Especially, as neither one has cast the other as the "competition" or "the enemy." Both sites grew out of the vacuum created when A4E imploded. They were built on positive, generous foundations. There is a different feel to this chat forum and that reflects the different membership. I suppose those who are uniquely members of this site are the ones we need to engage in discussion and ideas-generation. Is a direct survey part of the solution? |
|
|
|
Post by chelseacharger on Oct 11, 2015 17:25:53 GMT
^^^^ I totally understand what you mean about the balance between picture posting and discussion/debate. But it's a difficult one to judge on what is essentially something like a 'Favourite Picture' thread. How much does one discuss before the nature of that thread is changed? It's why I think maybe there should be and out and out Gallery as there is on the other forum which could still have a few comments attached and informative responses. But pictures could also be used in other threads at times to embellish a debate. Like you say, it's about striking a balance and about making the site user friendly for those who want to chat as well as those who want to find a particular photo. Or both.
|
|
|
|
Post by shoshin on Oct 11, 2015 18:07:45 GMT
shoshin, Fafner, HOMETIME, Roxanne, ...I think we'd actually stop gaining new members, because it is apparently these four or five photo threads that are attracting most of the people. If they never see them, they won't join... But we aren't gaining new members  |
|
|
|
Post by mwilson on Oct 11, 2015 20:27:53 GMT
shoshin, OK, semantics aside , we will continue to not gain new members. The point is, if people are visiting and not joining and these few picture boards are the boards that are getting the most views, it's obvious this is where the visitors are going. If we restrict them the visitors will never see them and may never even get here or come back. What chance do we have at more members then? I, like Fafner, don't have a problem with ads. Although I haven't yet seen the ads. If they are anything like those thumbnails that come up at the bottom of the pages the pictures link to it may be another story. I'm always for ads over pay service if I have a choice. I didn't know Roxanne was in a position to come out of her pockets for this. That certainly isn't fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fafner on Oct 11, 2015 20:31:49 GMT
But we are gaining new members, like Agness and Magnus that have joint quite recently - and there have been some others.
|
|
|
|
Post by HOMETIME on Oct 11, 2015 21:10:07 GMT
^^ Fafner's right: we have enthusiastic new members. It could be that our newer members (and possibly many of our more established members) are more picture-oriented (or even Agnetha-picture-oriented ). If the new members really are that interested in photos, then maybe this discussion is academic. Are we over analysing things? Is this forum already finding its own way, naturally? |
|
|
|
Post by mwilson on Oct 11, 2015 21:44:06 GMT
The reason the forum is becoming so Agnetha-picture centric is because the same very few people are contributing to it. And they are contributing many Agnetha pictures. Which brings us back to the original point. People aren't contributing so the very few who do dominate. There's nothing wrong with our active handful focusing mainly on Agnetha pics. But if they're the only ones posting that's almost all we'll get and I think we're capable of more than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by HOMETIME on Oct 11, 2015 21:55:30 GMT
If the new members are firmly focused on images, maybe it's the easiest way for them to contribute and participate. So maybe we're fretting for nothing. One of this site's USPs seems to be its image focus, so maybe that is what is attracting the new membership. The question is how we build on that to include the chattier types.
|
|
|
|
Post by shoshin on Oct 11, 2015 23:16:32 GMT
shoshin, ...The point is, if people are visiting and not joining and these few picture boards are the boards that are getting the most views, it's obvious this is where the visitors are going. If we restrict them the visitors will never see them and may never even get here or come back. What chance do we have at more members then?... I can only follow this logic if it's based on the assumption that currently most of these image views are coming from direct hits to a particular image thread/post, bypassing our home page. I would argue that this is unlikely because abbachat images do not feature prominently in Google results. Roxy will have stats to show how many hits we are getting to our front page. If it's low then you are correct, whereas if it's high it means that people are coming to the home page first. If the latter, they will currently see the image section of their fave member, click on it, and surf away. My proposal is that instead of this they will get a message saying they need to join, and they will then decide whether they think it's worth it or not to see all those lovely images. I don't see why this forum should be particularly concerned about losing the page views of someone who decides that it's not worth joining. |
|
|
|
Post by mwilson on Oct 12, 2015 2:36:16 GMT
So if these non-members are going to the main page, searching through the list of boards (some of which are within sub categories) and surfing away on Agnetha and group photos, will these same people join the forum just based on the benefit of permission to see what's inside such photo threads without having seen them yet? I think even if they are finding the forum, they won't join if they are not allowed to see what they're looking for. You gotta wonder, why are these people coming here? I mean, is there such a crave for Abba photos out there that has people searching forums for them? I'm thinking these people are kind of window shopping, looking at the pictures but not reading the words, thumbing through the pages in the bookstore without any intent to buy the book. It's a lot easier to browse photos of pretty ladies than it is to read lengthy comments about a music group, and way easier than coming up with a username and password, joining the forum and participating.
I guess what I'm starting to feel is, let the guests stay guests if they want to. The bigger problem is members who never participate.
|
|
|
|
Post by shoshin on Oct 12, 2015 10:43:50 GMT
So if these non-members are going to the main page, searching through the list of boards (some of which are within sub categories) and surfing away on Agnetha and group photos, will these same people join the forum just based on the benefit of permission to see what's inside such photo threads without having seen them yet? Not all of them. Probably not most of them. Maybe only a few of them. Almost certainly more of them than if they didn't have to join to view. I'm thinking these people are kind of window shopping, looking at the pictures but not reading the words, thumbing through the pages in the bookstore without any intent to buy the book. It's a lot easier to browse photos of pretty ladies than it is to read lengthy comments about a music group, and way easier than coming up with a username and password, joining the forum and participating Agreed. I could have written this myself, in support of my proposal. I guess what I'm starting to feel is, let the guests stay guests if they want to. The bigger problem is members who never participate. Agreed. My OP makes it clear that the main aim of the proposal is to get existing members to log in. Can I ask you a question? Like me, you log in most days. Do you do this as a matter of course, before noting whether there's any thread you really want to respond to? Or do you look through the latest posts first and then decide whether it's worth logging in or not? And if the former, why? |
|
|
|
Post by mwilson on Oct 12, 2015 13:20:50 GMT
Usually I come to the site when I get an email notification that I thread I have bookmarked has been updated. I have most of those popular photo threads bookmarked so that's pretty much every day. When I click the link to the thread from the email, I'm already logged in. I stay logged in on the computers I use. From there I'll occasionally check the "RECENT POSTS" to see what's new. Most of the time I find that these photo threads are mainly on that list, although I do acknowledge there are others.
I'm not sure we can assume most of these guests are actually members who just don't log in. Why would they have become members in the first place? I imagine they are long-term browsers. I was a long-term browser at Abba4ever (well, a few months anyway) before I decided I wanted to speak and join.
Of course, these are all suppositions. This thread has been quite active the last few days so it must be at or near the top of the "RECENT POSTS" list. Can I petition a long time guest to please join and let us know what their mentality is with this forum?
|
|
|
|
Post by shoshin on Oct 12, 2015 15:00:04 GMT
Can I petition a long time guest to please join and let us know what their mentality is with this forum? But we surely know why guests don't join. They get exactly the same access as members, without the minor inconvenience of having to join and log in. Unless they see a current thread that they have a burning desire to contribute to, why would they join? So we either need to make our content so interesting that they feel they simply must join us in order to partake, or we need to restrict some or all of the benefits of the site to members only. Or we need to stop grumbling about the lack of active contributors which, as you have pointed out, was a debate that you started  More useful to me would be to hear from a long time member who still checks us out regularly, but doesn't see any reason to log in. If members log in, they appear in the '24 hour' list, which combats the self-fulfilling 'empty shop' scenario. All I'm looking for is a handful more usernames on that list each day, ideally with a sprinkling of new blood once a week or so. It's not a particularly ambitious target. |
|
