Why have so many posters left this site?

[Big head]

Anyone speak to the usual mob who used to flood this place on a daily basis?

Me personally I had a kid, went through hell and back then started up back in Estate agency, so only really now got more time to post albeit now and then, mainly because it's so quiet on here now days.

[Mike Oxsaw]

Is a "Move this shit" button in posts a possibility?

If enough posters choose that option, the post is moved to something like a "Bickering Cunts" sub-forum (possibly with a link there & back if someone late to the party wants to see what all the fuss was about).

[Nutsin]

I think a "Cunting" thread is in order, so when two posters want to go at it they can go there to cսnt each other off.

Would certainly stop good threads from being ruined.

That's a good idea for usual suspects. New squabbles should play out where they begin though.

Whatever happens don't turn this place in to Hammers chat ffs. That place is dead. Keep all forums together, breaking up the forum in to categories will kill the site.

[Gank]

I think a "Cunting" thread is in order, so when two posters want to go at it they can go there to cսnt each other off.

Would certainly stop good threads from being ruined.

That's a good idea for usual suspects. New squabbles should play out where they begin though.

[Nutsin]

I think a "Cunting" thread is in order, so when two posters want to go at it they can go there to cսnt each other off.

Would certainly stop good threads from being ruined.

[Gank]

Stubbo, if this is the new site then the 'old' site you mention is actually the middle site. When that prat Ged and his gang took over moderation. Before that, with the proper old site, you had Alex V, his missus and Site Admin and it was the Wild West. Everyone loved it, especially on Friday afternoons after a pub lunch (you're not allowed that any more). 

When Alex V went, you had Gus and Stephen H take over and appoint all the fun sponges like Ged, there were about 15 mods and the only one with any credibility was Defjam, that was how the site started its decline. 

The improvements you have made - and they are numerous - is tidying up the mess the middle regime left behind, but it's nothing like the old site, the one before that middle time.

It probably won't ever get there as we would all be nicked these days, but that's the holy grail, not people being banned for talking about having a Chinky for dinner just because Ged married a slope.

[stubbo-admin]

Any thoughts?  You won't listen, but....

A thread has a title, if its political or has political content or music or 18th century theatre, posters can choose to post or not on that topic.  The temptation is to listen to people who complain that content is there, instead of letting them post where they choose.  A very light hand led to WHO becoming enjoyable and moderately successful at one point.  

It's a good view point. It's also one where you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

The idea that WHO never moderated, or let anything go is a bit of a fallacy...we still have North Bank on the 'team' and we run content moderation by him for his opinion.

The old site when we did user migration also had tens of users who had been banned for persistent trolling, abuse and racist remarks.

That's the reality of it...moderation on WHO is nothing new, and for every poster that wants a free for all, there is another who fed up of the bickering and petty squabbling that goes from thread to thread at times.

It's not 'my' site...I just unfortunately have the "admin" bit in the username as a function of when doing the technical stuff and needing two user accounts....one with admin rights and one with out. But we have other guys also involved in running the place.

The other issue is all the old moderators pretty much left...the guys with the experience of where the line was....and most left because they were fed up having to deal with the shit on the site and the abuse that went hand in hand with it. 

So WHO now is still trying to be what it always was. Is dramatically more forgiving than most forums you'll run into, and tries to toe the right line.

I'm all for anything that promotes more content and engagement frankly. I can just ignore the content I dont like as you say....and only ever wanted to be the technical solution to the technical problem, which was that the old software solution was end of life. But like so often in life...when you put your hand up to try and help something you end up getting more than you bargained for.

I'm sorry if the 'line' is in the wrong place for you personally. For some it's too harsh. For yet others it's too leniant. The right middle ground is very hard to find and it's a big grey area. 

So we do our best, with the best of intentions regardless.  And we'll keep trying to iterate, improve, and breathe life into the old girl. But it's not an exact science.

[riosleftsock]

Any thoughts?  You won't listen, but....

A thread has a title, if its political or has political content or music or 18th century theatre, posters can choose to post or not on that topic.  The temptation is to listen to people who complain that content is there, instead of letting them post where they choose.  A very light hand led to WHO becoming enjoyable and moderately successful at one point.  

[stubbo-admin]

Interesting idea earlier...the idea of more split by topic type. 

We grouped all the Politics under one thread to make it easier to avoid...but tis probably reduced the number of posts and debates about different current affairs subjects...all be it they tend to navigate towards a single relentless argument between two points of view.

Should there be an entirely separate area of the forum for 'debate' style topics, and keep Off Topic for lighter stuff like the music threads, birds, quizzes etc....and then let the politics thread go in favour of more current affairs threads?

Still means you can avoid that stuff if you want to, but if it's your thing you can indulge.

Any thoughts?

[Gank]

The people who make up increased traffic come on here on match days to find a link to a stream, not to see what the morons who use this site think of the selection or tactics.

I am sure that’s part of it. But I think most of the traffic is after the game finishes. 

Well, whatever the lure, match days used to bring the site to a standstill so despite all these complaints, you've done a grand job in fixing that.

[riosleftsock]

I'd not only bring him back, I'd have gopnik themed posts and some bench teknik music as backing.  He was a proper cսnt, but thats what made this site so amusing.

A forum, whether its about allotments, football or a mumsnet type site about advanced crochet will always be driven by social and political interactions.  The fact that stubbo thought he could throttle all of this down to concentrate on the football is a stark lesson in how to run a social media website.

[honky cat]

I'd be interested to know what percentage are outside England. I think the 'west ham diaspora' are more needy of west ham news and london style banter.

[wils]

'Posting content'

Pack it in, Wils. Ghastly phrase.

It is. But think of it as a euphemism for what we actually post. 

[wils]

The people who make up increased traffic come on here on match days to find a link to a stream, not to see what the morons who use this site think of the selection or tactics.

I am sure that’s part of it. But I think most of the traffic is after the game finishes. 

[goose]

The ghost of pickle

[Cabbige Savage]

my firend tell you he will destroy WHO  
win agayn

[goose]

The new look/feel is better but the site is slowly dying. Might be posters, might just be the way the world is going. Who knows?

[Gank]

The people who make up increased traffic come on here on match days to find a link to a stream, not to see what the morons who use this site think of the selection or tactics.

[Swiss.]

I highly doubt this site averages 65 posters a day.

Less than half of that would be my educated guess.

Wils setup a stats page to track these things. The numbers are legit 

There's ~20+ on this small thread alone.

It's worth adding that these figures are just the people posting content. There are also big page view spikes on match days where people seek the site out to see what we are saying about the match.

For example, the Chelsea game had a big spike in 'click throughs' from the search term "west ham forum". These were likely a mixture rent boys coming to pleasure themselves over us venting our misery and fair weather West Ham fans trying to make sense of the result by reading the mad ramblings of us lot. 

But what is the year on average of people online not posts?  

[Massive Attack]

You’d be ideal, Nursey. I already think you’re Dawn Neeson, so you’re comfortable on camera. 

I had her more down as big Mo from Eastenders.. Oh look, the green bogey's been removed!

[Nurse Ratched]

'Posting content'

Pack it in, Wils. Ghastly phrase.

[wils]

115 posters, 650 posts on the day of the Chelsea game.

102 posters, 547 posts on the day of the Wolves game.

The "average" day there are about 65 posters, and around 230 posts to the site per day, typically spread over about 20 topics.

I highly doubt this site averages 65 posters a day.

Less than half of that would be my educated guess.

Wils setup a stats page to track these things. The numbers are legit 

There's ~20+ on this small thread alone.

It's worth adding that these figures are just the people posting content. There are also big page view spikes on match days where people seek the site out to see what we are saying about the match.

For example, the Chelsea game had a big spike in 'click throughs' from the search term "west ham forum". These were likely a mixture rent boys coming to pleasure themselves over us venting our misery and fair weather West Ham fans trying to make sense of the result by reading the mad ramblings of us lot. 

[Nurse Ratched]

Urgh! Fuck, no!

You’d be ideal, Nursey. I already think you’re Dawn Neeson, so you’re comfortable on camera. 

I had her more down as big Mo from Eastenders.. Oh look, the green bogey's been removed!

[Pub Bigot]

I still think a YouTube channel/podcast would drive traffic here. 

I'm not built for the camera, so one of you other suave fuckers should. Not Bolty though, he lacks intelligence and his head is too large. 

Come on then?

Can you get to Liverpool? If yes, I'll meet you at Elif on Bold Street and we can discuss your call out over a three course Turkish meal. 

[Big head]

I still think a YouTube channel/podcast would drive traffic here. 

I'm not built for the camera, so one of you other suave fuckers should. Not Bolty though, he lacks intelligence and his head is too large. 

Come on then?

[Pub Bigot]

Do you mean Dawn Neesom?

She's West Ham.

Yeah, fat fingers and autocorrect led to confusion. 

Dawn’s alright, Nursey. Take from that what you will.