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.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dave who wrote (23407)	2/23/2006 1:23:49 PM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32882

<<96% of free member (i.e., ad viewing) page views are on investment boards.>> Do you think the fact that you don't allow free members to post on the political boards has anything to do with the numbers you posted? It seems to me like you would give away the political boards and make them pay to post on the market boards if the market boards were where people would be willing to pay to post.

To: SI Dave who wrote (23407)	2/23/2006 1:52:23 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32882

Not meaning to state the obvious, but we're going to associate prize money with the boards that pay the rent (and make it possible to have prize money in the first place.) I misspoke when I gave Bob some information earlier. 96% of free member (i.e., ad viewing) page views are on investment boards. About 60% of the remaining 4% are Coffee Shop boards, and the remaining 40% are page views on political boards. In short, the political boards account for < 2% of ad-viewing page views. You can bet that the number of free users actually visiting those boards is an even lower percentage. Oh, and using yesterday as an example, political boards accounted for 0.4% of recurring subscribers (other than P+) page views. Look.........you clearly have the advantage when quoting numbers. However, from a purely anecdotal perspective, there seems to be something rotten in Denmark......and its not cartoons of Mohammad. <g> Your numbers do not seem to reflect the reality.......at least not anecdotally. In the past, I have found that I can figuratively roll a bowling ball down most SI stock threads and not hit a poster. That's been true ever seen the Naz crashed in 2000. In fact, I would post more on the stock threads if those threads were more active. I don't know how you decide the allocation of page views or ad page spreads, but I suspect they are weighted towards the stock threads simply because there are more of them. I further suspect that there may be another way of evaluating the total picture where the political threads are shown to have greater input into SI's numbers. We all know how numbers can be rearranged to make a particular case. However, that's not the point I was making. Rather, it has to do with SI's attitude towards its political threads. Instead of seeing them for what they really are..........a relatively safe place for political discourse at a time when this nation is badly divided over what is the best way to go forwards, SI treats them like they are a necessary evil. What I don't think you realize is that on any given day, on almost any thread or board on any website on the net no matter what the chosen topic is, its not unusual to see a political discussion break out. I have seen such discussions on asthma boards, stock boards, entertainment boards, etc........and it takes a lot of effort to stop those discussions once they have started. That's why SI's political threads are great and that's why I recommend them to all who are interested. They are particularly attractive to those who invest in stocks AND like discussing politics. Like I said earlier, its your business and you can run as you see fit. However, I simply wanted to let you know how I saw the situation particularly as it regards your contest and the exclusion from participation of the political threads' posters in said contest. Certainly, its not the end of the world........but I thought my commenting was appropriate. Thank you for your response.