CFC Forums/ChessTalk Comparison

[Bob Armstrong]

In response to my post on ChessTalk, Governor Egis Zeromskis posted:

Today, 11:23 AM Egidijus Zeromskis

Re: CFC Chess Forums/ChessTalk Comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong
" Governor Ken Einarsson explained to me that this is a web traffic information site. He said that the site indicates that in Canada " chesstalk in tracffic is 14,376h most popular site and chess.ca is 77,673rd most popular site. " So in reality, in overall traffic, ChessTalk is only double the CFC boards' traffic

Your conclusion is wrong as it based on the wrong data. The CFC board website address is chesscanada.info not chess.ca

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/chesscanada.info#
12,811 Traffic Rank in CA
613,708 Alexa Traffic Rank

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/chesstalk.info#
14,376 Traffic Rank in CA
508,507 Alexa Traffic Rank

As for the real comparison - I'm too biased - here and there I'm on the top list of posters (probably meaning that both boards have values in their own ways) ."

Can anyone explain what these figures are and what they say about the CFC and CMA sites? Here is what I posted:

Today, 11:52 AM Bob Armstrong


Re: CFC Chess Forums/ChessTalk Comparison

Hi Egis:

I'm not familiar with these terms.

What is the first number - 12, 811 for CFC; 14, 376 for CMA ? Does this mean that CMA is only now 12 % busier than the CFC sites?

What is the second number - 613,708 for CFC; 508,507 for CMA? Does this mean the CFC site is 21% busier than the CMA site? I find that hard to believe !

Are these figures only re Canadian viewers?

Bob

Thanks in advance.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

It's a ranking, it means the CFC board is the 12,811th most popular web site for Canadians.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

It's a ranking, it means the CFC board is the 12,811th most popular web site for Canadians.

and we should add "according to Alex"

[Bob Armstrong]

In response to my post on ChessTalk, Governor Egis Zeromskis posted:

Today, 11:23 AM Egidijus Zeromskis

Re: CFC Chess Forums/ChessTalk Comparison

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/chesscanada.info#
12,811 Traffic Rank in CA
613,708 Alexa Traffic Rank

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/chesstalk.info#
14,376 Traffic Rank in CA
508,507 Alexa Traffic Rank

So, am I getting up to speed now? Let's see:

So as per the Alexa website, CFC ranks # 613,708 among all websites, by all viewers in the world.

And the CMA ChessTalk site ranks ahead of CFC at the # 508,507 place, among all websites, by all viewers in the world.

But:

If we only take Canadian viewers, ( is it still of all websites in the world? )then :

CMA ChessTalk ranks # 12,811.

CFC sites rank closer to ChessTalk this time, at # 14,376.

Do I finally get a gold star on this??

But that all leads me back to my question of trying to compare activity on the CMA site, vs the 2 CFC sites. It seems that since non-logged in viewers are not captured in the " members' list ", activity can only be measured by counting the total number of views of the total number of threads in a defined period. Am I right on this?

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

That is true on both boards.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

OK - making progress here.

Now, I can look at only threads posted in a defined period, and total the views of those threads/replies.

But people are also replying to threads started before the defined period, during the defined period. There appears to be no way to determine those number of views - because the " views " is the total since the thread started, and it may have started before the defined period. So some of those views are OUTSIDE of the defined period and cannot be counted.

So my conclusion is that these boards have no way of computing the activityy in a defined period - at least not that an ordinary viewer has access to ! Am I right? ( who designed this anyway ? Is this not an important question re " views in a defined period " to get activity? ).

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Well, I'm not really sure why it would be important unless you're trying to sell ads on the websites.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

Makes it pretty hard to compare the CFC boards and the CMA board.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Hi Chris:

Makes it pretty hard to compare the CFC boards and the CMA board.

Bob

It really depends what you want to compare. As for the forums - how many different threads, replies, people take part would be better parameters.

As Chris says, the number of those invisible readers is only interested if forums are commercials with banners. However this information definitely is not in a public possession. (and probably an account administrator should see much more useful info, e.g. similar to this http://www.nltechno.com/awstats/awst...destailleur.fr or other webalizer)

[Bob Armstrong]

It really depends what you want to compare. As for the forums - how many different threads, replies, people take part would be better parameters.

Hi Egis:

Well here is what I now believe I can do:

1. By using the " Members' List " feature, I can count the number of " logged in " viewers, and can get their names. You can't do more than 1 day though with this feature. If X appears on day 1, and then again visits on day 2, his name is automatically removed from the day 1 list, because the feature gives the most recent visit date. So you have to start calculating about 11:45 PM and finish before midnight.

2. I can count the number of threads started in a defined period.

3. I can calculate the number of " posts " in a defined period. I can count the number of threads started in a defined period ( say one week ) and the number of reply posts, to get that total of " posts ". Then I have to go through all posts started prior to the week, that have had a reply post in the week. I have to look at each reply post to see the date, and thus get how many replies were made in the week in that post. And I have to do that for each thread with a reply during the week. Then I total all these up and can get the number of " posts " ( thread and replies ) during the week - whew !!

Outside of these 3 stats, I'm not sure what else can be calculated. Anyone have any suggestions for what else could be calculated?

Bob