Meta-discussion: What do you find interesting about fora statistics?

[marshwiggle]

A discussion in another thread made me wonder about statistics related to the fora. It didn't take much looking to find this:

https://thefora.org/index.php?action=stats

So, as the subject says, what about these stats do you find interesting?

[Katrina Gulliver]

Compared to the old fora, the job search section doesn't seem as popular. And I believe we had a "leaving academe" section there; I feel like that would have been super busy during the pandemic (anecdotally, quite a few people are walking away right now, or have done over the last year+).

[ergative]

I'm rather charmed that 'what have you read lately' doesn't make the top ten topics by replies, but does make the top ten by views. I'm so happy that our nattering on about bookish things has attracted lurkers. That seems pure and good, especially in light of the negative valence attached to the other top threads.

[marshwiggle]

I'm rather charmed that 'what have you read lately' doesn't make the top ten topics by replies, but does make the top ten by views.

I also find the difference in topics by replies vs. views fascinating. It would be interesting to see topics ranked by the ratio of views to replies to see what gets the highest proportion of spectators.

[Hibush]

I like to get a sense of the engagement by listing the members in order of comment number. That shows how big the community is. While it can seem that there aren't that many commenters, it turns out that monikers are familiar very far down that list. That is a sign of good health.

[apl68]

I'm in the Top 10 on post count?  Sure wasn't that way at the old Fora!  And polly is still at #3, despite not having posted in something like a year.

[lightning]

I was expecting more of a 1:1 male to female ratio.

Another surprise:
Marshy, it looks like you are catching up to Polly_mer, for 3rd place.

I know this fora is not as active as the CHE fora, but I honestly do not miss all the noise from the old fora, which was a lot of the activity over there. There were way too many clueless and often belligerently clueless folks on the job seeking advice threads (like holders of ED higher education degrees getting indignant when we told them to give it up). And then there were all the inappropriate relationships threads. Then there were the adjunct porn threads. And then there were the train wrecks that were started and perpetuated by fake personas and their fake stories (remember AHA star?). I'm beginning to think that the old CHE fora was stoked by the CHE and a stealth cast of CHE characters, to stoke tabloid-worthy discussion and attention, so CHE could keep up with insidehighered and others, without sullying the hallowed Chronicle brand. At least with the new fora, with the exception of the resident village idiot, there isn't nearly as much noise as the old CHE fora.

[mahagonny]

I was expecting more of a 1:1 male to female ratio.

Another surprise:
Marshy, it looks like you are catching up to Polly_mer, for 3rd place.

I know this fora is not as active as the CHE fora, but I honestly do not miss all the noise from the old fora, which was a lot of the activity over there. There were way too many clueless and often belligerently clueless folks on the job seeking advice threads (like holders of ED higher education degrees getting indignant when we told them to give it up). And then there were all the inappropriate relationships threads. Then there were the adjunct porn threads.

The problems with adjunct situations discussion are
(1) the case that the adjunct situation is decent enough to continue as it is is resisted and
(2)  the maintenance of the tenure track incentivizes adjunct hiring. The people with the lucrative jobs don't appreciate hearing about that.
So dismissing the whole business with a label like 'adjunct porn' stigmatizes the discussion. Problem solved, for people like you, who perhaps think your motives are concealed.

ETA:

It would be interesting to see topics ranked by the ratio of views to replies to see what gets the highest proportion of spectators.

With respect to discussions about national politics, I suspect a not uncommon thought process among lurkers is something like 'there may be a way to push back against liberal narratives without being accused of trolling, but it's probably not worth the time spent.'

[lightning]

I was expecting more of a 1:1 male to female ratio.

Another surprise:
Marshy, it looks like you are catching up to Polly_mer, for 3rd place.

I know this fora is not as active as the CHE fora, but I honestly do not miss all the noise from the old fora, which was a lot of the activity over there. There were way too many clueless and often belligerently clueless folks on the job seeking advice threads (like holders of ED higher education degrees getting indignant when we told them to give it up). And then there were all the inappropriate relationships threads. Then there were the adjunct porn threads.

The problems with adjunct situations discussion are
(1) the case that the adjunct situation is decent enough to continue as it is is resisted and
(2)  the maintenance of the tenure track incentivizes adjunct hiring. The people with the lucrative jobs don't appreciate hearing about that.
So dismissing the whole business with a label like 'adjunct porn' stigmatizes the discussion. Problem solved, for people like you, who perhaps think your motives are concealed.

Like I've said several times in my previous posts about adjuncts, I get in the face of administrators when they try to use an adjunct when we should be using full-timers. So far, my unit, does not have any adjuncts. We are all full-time, mostly tenure-track. Believe me, it's a tough fight. I've been getting in an admin's face this week, who is trying to replace a full-time position with an adjunct position. What I'm doing is real action. All you do is talk.

[marshwiggle]

I was expecting more of a 1:1 male to female ratio.

Another surprise:
Marshy, it looks like you are catching up to Polly_mer, for 3rd place.

I'm probably not even close in word count. Polly often wrote long treatises on issues that must have taken hours to put together with references, etc.

I can't can't repel firepower of that magnitude.

[mahagonny]

I was expecting more of a 1:1 male to female ratio.

Another surprise:
Marshy, it looks like you are catching up to Polly_mer, for 3rd place.

I know this fora is not as active as the CHE fora, but I honestly do not miss all the noise from the old fora, which was a lot of the activity over there. There were way too many clueless and often belligerently clueless folks on the job seeking advice threads (like holders of ED higher education degrees getting indignant when we told them to give it up). And then there were all the inappropriate relationships threads. Then there were the adjunct porn threads.

The problems with adjunct situations discussion are
(1) the case that the adjunct situation is decent enough to continue as it is is resisted and
(2)  the maintenance of the tenure track incentivizes adjunct hiring. The people with the lucrative jobs don't appreciate hearing about that.
So dismissing the whole business with a label like 'adjunct porn' stigmatizes the discussion. Problem solved, for people like you, who perhaps think your motives are concealed.

All you do is talk.

No I don't just talk. I participate in our union which has no support from our tenure track faculty, ever.

Like I've said several times in my previous posts about adjuncts, I get in the face of administrators when they try to use an adjunct when we should be using full-timers. So far, my unit, does not have any adjuncts. We are all full-time, mostly tenure-track. Believe me, it's a tough fight. I've been getting in an admin's face this week, who is trying to replace a full-time position with an adjunct position. What I'm doing is real action.

So you would logically welcome discussion of the adjunct discussion. But you don't. Or you wouldn't be calling it 'adjunct porn' unless maybe you enjoy relating it something you know a lot about.

[mamselle]

I'm less stats-driven and more people-driven.

I come here to meet up with friends and hear the news.

I may visit the occasional 'controversial' thread but not post because anymore, the 'controversies' all boil down to the same four people firing at each other with the same few shots, and I find that boring.

I check into them to see if there's anything egregious that needs a flame-thrower to startle the firing squad and fox their aims at each other, but beyond that, they're so predictable that I'd rather spend my time on the cats thread, where the real work of the universe is getting done.

I just wonder, every now and again, what happened to the dogs thread, though--do we have fewer canine-o-philes among us than formerly?

Or are they just busier, out walking their four-footeds, rather than having time to post about them?

Anyway, work to do...

M.

[mahagonny]

I may visit the occasional 'controversial' thread but not post because anymore, the 'controversies' all boil down to the same four people firing at each other with the same few shots, and I find that boring.

S'il vous plait, not all the time. Whereas you posted a video with Joy Reid in it, you're contributing to controversy, since she a racist media flame-thrower.

[aside]

And so it goes ...

[marshwiggle]

And so it goes ...

Just for the record, since I started this topic, I don't really care if the discussion meanders. I can just ignore whatever posts don't interest me and focus on the ones that do. As the say, à chacun son goût ...