Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : SI Beta Site Launch - 7/01/99 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1614)	8/9/1999 11:47:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2340

Michelle, I find myself puzzled by your attitude, which strikes me as somewhat ostrich-like. You suggest that there are only a few "loud complainers" about the New SI, and that they are concentrated on the Beta Site thread. First of all, I personally see no appreciable difference in that regard between the Beta Site thread and the Welcome Thread. And if you really want to hear some (short but pithy) complaining, go to the Petition Thread. Subject 29753 Well, you could say that only about 600 people have signed that petition, which is a tiny percentage of the over-all SI membership. But take a closer look at who the signatories are. For example, it's my impression that SI values its "most bookmarked posters" (because of the number of views per page and the publicity they generate?). Well, close to 50% of the top 50 most bookmarked posters have signed the petition. That should tell you something. You say that the "overwhelming majority" of SI users are "somewhat complacent" about the New SI. I don't think that "complacent" is the word you want. Indifferent about it? Content with it? How do you know? This "majority" has clearly have not voted in the poll: unicus.com At this point, 722 SI users have voted; 86% in favor of keeping both sites, 14% in favor of scrapping the Classic site. Amazingly, the proportion has hardly changed since the beginning of the poll. It has never varied more than 1%! That too should tell you something. BryanB proved responsive to user discontent, and pledged that his team would at least explore the possibility of offering users both options -- the New interface or the Classic -- on the new site. I realize that you were only responding to the charge that the New SI is a "complete fiasco," not to the simple request that the Classic SI be retained in some form. But you are doing neither yourself nor SI/GNET a service by implying that a few "malcontents" (at least you didn't call them "outside agitators") are giving a false picture of user dissatisfaction. In conclusion, let me repost a message from AntMan that I found on the Welcome thread. It shows, I think, the degree to which "user discontent" is actually a tribute to SI: Message 10870933

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1614)	8/10/1999 9:16:00 AM
From: Craig Richards	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2340

Michelle, Messages posted on SI have decreased markedly since exchange2000.com was switched over to the new format over the weekend. My calculations show about a 40% decrease in the number of messages posted. How much of a decrease do you need to apply the "complete fiasco" label? Also, this is only with 1 server switched over, imagine how much more of a decrease there would have been if talk.techstocks.com was also switched to the new format. Regards, Craig

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1614)	8/10/1999 12:58:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2340

Michelle, on what are you basing your comments re posting volume? As in the following: If the new SI were truly a fiasco there would be some indicators of such...fewer posts, etc. The only place where I'm noticing fewer posts is on the complainer...err..SI beta site launch thread. Your point about over-all posting volume is an important one, and Craig Richards has already addressed it. The point about volume on this thread is totally insignificant, but still, it is easy enough to check out. So I went back a few weeks, and counted posting volume each day. This is what I came up with (do not guarantee 100% accuracy): Average volume, 7/1-7/16: 38 daily 7/17: 43 7/18: 58 7/19: 55 7/20: 24 7/21: 14 7/22: 44 7/23: 22 7/24: 8 7/25: 13 7/26: 32 7/27: 21 7/28: 24 7/29: 42 7/30: 49 7/31: 64 8/1: 57 8/2: 28 8/3: 67 8/4: 69 8/5: 71 8/6: 83 8/7: 59 8/8: 26 8/9: 54 To me, it looks as if posting on this thread has increased, not decreased, since the New SI was officially launched. The high point was in the period 8/3-8/6, with posts clustering around BryanB's responses to our various requests/complaints. If you mean the relative fall-off within the past few days, the average for them is still 46 posts per day, which beats the averages for earlier periods. None of this matters, of course. My only reason for bringing it up is in order to demonstrate that when you make statements like "most SI members think..." or "the majority are complacent", etc., you should base them on something more than your own perceptions. Because perceptions are tricky -- they can trick you into seeing things that aren't there. Joan