Forum Growth.....or not?

[Kirk Gittings]

You have screwed the numbers up. It got up to like 2.5k once before these last 4 years in the whole history of the forum that I am aware of. But so what. It has grown despite the onslaught of digital. BUT we have always been a small niche even before digital and now. That will never change.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Numbers are useful, but there is no metric for the concentrated expertise that has grown thanks to long-term participants. This is definitely my go-to place for expertise. Other forums seem to be largely of transients, perhaps due to the personality of the group as a whole. Reasonable moderation is also responsible for keeping the good folk involved. IMHO, of course.

[Darin Boville]

You have screwed the numbers up.

Looked again, my numbers are (mostly) fine.

As you reported for active members:

June 2008 - 2234
Jan 2010 - 2814
Dec 2010 - 3012
Dec 2012 - 2788
April 2016 - 3209

So Dec 2012 to April 2016 (40 months) the active members grew by 421 members. Spread across 40 months that's 10.5 new members a month on average.

Of course that doesn't mean it was slow and steady growth all that time. There might have been an early spike followed by a long decline--or just the opposite. Impossible to tell what is going on with the long time period.

I wonder if APUG has followed the same pattern?

--Darin

[Ralph Barker]

. . .

I wonder if APUG has followed the same pattern?

--Darin

I hope so.

[BrianShaw]

I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but is it really "active" members or "registered" members? There is a difference.

[Vaughn]

How about something simple, like the number of posts per month?

[Kirk Gittings]

How about something simple, like the number of posts per month?

That only measures verbosity

[Oren Grad]

That only measures verbosity

And the ebb and flow of... umm... controversy.

[Kirk Gittings]

Looked again, my numbers are (mostly) fine.

As you reported for active members:

June 2008 - 2234
Jan 2010 - 2814
Dec 2010 - 3012
Dec 2012 - 2788
April 2016 - 3209

So Dec 2012 to April 2016 (40 months) the active members grew by 421 members. Spread across 40 months that's 10.5 new members a month on average.

Of course that doesn't mean it was slow and steady growth all that time. There might have been an early spike followed by a long decline--or just the opposite. Impossible to tell what is going on with the long time period.

I wonder if APUG has followed the same pattern?

--Darin

You are right I screwed the numbers up.

So there are two issues here, long term trends and recent trends which I'm guessing probably have a lot more to do with what's happening in photography in general than moderating in particular.

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but is it really "active" members or "registered" members? There is a difference.

Since the # of people who participate regularly is such a small percentage of membership (like 3k of 18k) , I never thought membership numbers really meant much. Visits may record lurkers but I don't think we record that.