ForumGarden

There's actually 8 members here now, though only 5 are listed, and 877 non-posting guests. This is freaky. I think I'll make it 7 members. FAST.

Freaky in what sense, Pam? Expand your sense of shock or outrage a little, I haven't grasped it yet.

Ooops, here is #9 for a few moments.......................

Good day to you, Pam!

says 13 right now. is that an unlucky number? Not for me -as they are mostly the folks I care to read.

I'm completely bemused. What, in short simple sentences, is the thread about?

spot;1321378 wrote: I'm completely bemused. What, in short simple sentences, is the thread about?


Seemed like an observation to me.

Suppose it could have gone into a random thoughts thread. But we have threads about the weather and what you are eating and what pleased you or angered you.... those could go the same way, IMO.

I'm curious as to why this one in particular has caught your bemused eye... what do you think it is about? Perhaps you should start a thread on your bemusement as this one could end up closed if we stray too much off topic.

spot;1321378 wrote: I'm completely bemused. What, in short simple sentences, is the thread about?


8 members

877 guests.

877 people watching 8 people:eek:

At A guess:-3:D

btw 14 and 866;)

I'm bemused most of the time at most things...

flopstock;1321381 wrote: I'm curious as to why this one in particular has caught your bemused eye... what do you think it is about? Perhaps you should start a thread on your bemusement as this one could end up closed if we stray too much off topic.


It was "This is freaky" that caught my eye, emphasized by the five question marks in the thread title. I have absolutely no idea why those figures are in any way freakish as opposed to commonplace. So I said I was bemused and asked for an explanation, not that anybody's offered one yet.

:wah: I'm bemused anytime.

spot;1321386 wrote: It was "This is freaky" that caught my eye, emphasized by the five question marks in the thread title. I have absolutely no idea why those figures are in any way freakish as opposed to commonplace. So I said I was bemused and asked for an explanation, not that anybody's offered one yet.


How will you ever get through the day now:wah::wah:eee ya funny guy:yh_rotfl

kazalala;1321391 wrote: How will you ever get through the day now:wah::wah:eee ya funny guy:yh_rotfl


Now I'm being taunted!

Come on someone, put me out of my misery.

15 and 907........:sneaky:

spot;1321392 wrote: Now I'm being taunted!

Come on someone, put me out of my misery.
Put you out of your misery?????:-3now that is freaky:wah:how on earth are we supposed to do that:-2:wah::wah:

How many guests you see at the other forums you visit, Spot?

just to let you know, im off to walk the dog now, so i dont count on the whos online thingy as i am not really here:sneaky::D

spot;1321386 wrote: It was "This is freaky" that caught my eye, emphasized by the five question marks in the thread title. I have absolutely no idea why those figures are in any way freakish as opposed to commonplace. So I said I was bemused and asked for an explanation, not that anybody's offered one yet.


What word and punctuation would you have used?

flopstock;1321395 wrote: How many guests you see at the other forums you visit, Spot?


It depends on several factors.

The time between their arrival and dropping off the count is, approximately, a multiplier. If a site's set to drop a guest from the count after one hour then it'll show roughly a tenth of the "number of guests" of an equivalent site set to drop a guest from the count after ten hours.

An increased rate of message turnover, and an increased proportion of links into the site from elsewhere on the Internet, will drive up the rate of spider crawling. Spiders are counted as guests.

The larger the post count and the more world-relevant the posts on site, the more search engine referrals there will be. People arriving from searches are counted as guests unless they register and log in.

Some sites bigger than ForumGarden have a shorter timeout on the guest count and might consequently show a lower figure. Some don't. linuxquestions.org for example currently shows 49 members and 1455 guests.

What aspect of the ForumGarden count is freaky?

32 members and 908 guests

perhaps guests are like members and forget to log off.

they're still using the site.

you still see members names when they haven't logged off.

mods rarely log off, mods never log off on 2 forums I am on, it makes the forum look busy for guests and new people.:yh_wink

spot;1321399 wrote: It depends on several factors.

The time between their arrival and dropping off the count is, approximately, a multiplier. If a site's set to drop a guest from the count after one hour then it'll show roughly a tenth of the "number of guests" of an equivalent site set to drop a guest from the count after ten hours.

An increased rate of message turnover, and an increased proportion of links into the site from elsewhere on the Internet, will drive up the rate of spider crawling. Spiders are counted as guests.

The larger the post count and the more world-relevant the posts on site, the more search engine referrals there will be. People arriving from searches are counted as guests unless they register and log in.

Some sites bigger than ForumGarden have a shorter timeout on the guest count and might consequently show a lower figure. Some don't. linuxquestions.org for example currently shows 49 members and 1455 guests.

What aspect of the ForumGarden count is freaky?


I asked a simple question Spot.

Is the 1 sample you supply indicative of what you see at the majority of other forums you visit? Because i can tell you that it is not indicative of the numbers I saw at the other sites I visited to check earlier today - one of which was listing you as currently on line. 11 to14 - 4 to 8, were a couple - as I recall.

:sneaky:33, 941





and 23 posts on the subject....:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

flopstock;1321406 wrote: I asked a simple question Spot.

Is the 1 sample you supply indicative of what you see at the majority of other forums you visit? Because i can tell you that it is not indicative of the numbers I saw at the other sites I visited to check earlier today - one of which was listing you as currently on line. 11 to14 - 4 to 8, were a couple - as I recall.Then surely, those sites have a shorter guest timeout or a lower message turnover or a decreased proportion of links into the site from elsewhere on the Internet or a lower post count or fewer world-relevant posts. The site you refer to, for example, has a five minute timeout compared to ForumGarden's four hours, a hundredth of the message base and quite possibly fewer world-relevant posts though that might change in the future.

Where's the freakiness?

Peg;1321398 wrote: What word and punctuation would you have used?


Well Spot?

spot;1321410 wrote: Then surely, those sites have a shorter guest timeout or a lower message turnover or a decreased proportion of links into the site from elsewhere on the Internet or a lower post count or fewer world-relevant posts. The site you refer to, for example, has a five minute timeout compared to ForumGarden's four hours, a hundredth of the message base and quite possibly fewer world-relevant posts though that might change in the future.

Where's the freakiness?


Well, of the five sites I visited for comparison purposes, this site had the most skewed user to guest ratio. Which made it the one with irregular or unusual site stats. aka..... freaky



26:sneaky:

flopstock;1321416 wrote: Well, of the five sites I visited for comparison purposes, this site had the most skewed user to guest ratio. Which made it the one with irregular or unusual site stats. aka..... freakyAh.

We'll put it down to inexperience then, shall we.

AussiePam;1321365 wrote: There's actually 8 members here now, though only 5 are listed, and 877 non-posting guests. This is freaky. I think I'll make it 7 members. FAST.


You're a funny "Gull" Pam:sneaky::wah:

Kathy Ellen;1321433 wrote: You're a funny "Gull" Pam:sneaky::wah:


Wait til she stops back and sees how busy this thread has been...:wah:

flopstock;1321434 wrote: Wait til she stops back and sees how busy this thread has been...:wah:


Oh, I'm sure Pam is going to treasure this thread:wah:

kazalala;1321383 wrote: 8 members

877 guests.

877 people watching 8 people:eek:

At A guess:-3:D
Kinda shows FG members are a tough lot, they can take on 877 guests! :wah::D:):p

cars;1321439 wrote: Kinda shows FG members are a tough lot, they can take on 877 guests! :wah::D:):p


Yes, we'll invite them over to the Pub!

chonsigirl;1321453 wrote: Yes, we'll invite them over to the Pub!


here we go.:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Attached files

Everyone's gone to the pub! It's just me now and all those thousands of creepie crawlie spiders. One thousand and fifteen right now, to be exact (8119 legs - I squished one by accident). They're evidently breeding ... If Forum Garden's Resident Expert (FGRE) says this is not freaky, who are we to question his experiential sagacity???? Or for that matter FGRE's rather unseemly interest in one's personal punctuational peculiarities?????? !!!!

(Pam brushes off a few cobwebs, removes a tarantula from her hair, smacks a pair of impassioned blackwidows out of her way, squelches on a bunch of funnelwebs and exits, stage left, as the vuvuzela orchestra plays 'The Party's Over'...)

theia;1321385 wrote: I'm bemused most of the time at most things...


Indeed.

Most recently Im bemused that spock is perplexed about the intent of this thread and wants to get to the bottom of it.

Life is perplexing, Nomad. Especially when the desert has no subtext, just spiders. There's 898 of them around now ...

No explanation needed. I got that. I am curious as to why spock is curious and demands validation as to why on Gods green Earth would you post such a preposterous thread posing dangerous questions.

AussiePam;1321519 wrote: Life is perplexing, Nomad. Especially when the desert has no subtext, just spiders. There's 898 of them around now ...


There you go again. Spock will not be amused. Bad Pam !

Nomad;1321521 wrote: No explanation needed. I got that. I am curious as to why spock is curious and demands validation as to why on Gods green Earth would you post such a preposterous thread posing dangerous questions.


This new system's very clunky isn't it? I can never locate the reply text box. Guess it's set up for use mainly with iPhones now.

Anyway, yes, Nomad - I also found that curious. And his persistence even curiouser. Must be a very quiet weekend.

Its scary and exciting and oh I dont know...just too many things to process all at once.

AussiePam;1321365 wrote: There's actually 8 members here now, though only 5 are listed, and 877 non-posting guests. This is freaky. I think I'll make it 7 members. FAST.


Does this mean that "THEY" are watching "US"? I'm gettin' outta here!

Zapata;1321529 wrote: Does this mean that "THEY" are watching "US"? I'm gettin' outta here!


Spot, Spiders or spotted spiders?????? RUN Zappy!!!

Attached files

8 members 738 "guests"

Hmmm. By my calculations 139 of those voyeurs are in church or at the beach. 877 less 738 . . .etc. I excel at math and deduction, you know. :wah:

Oh wait, if they're Australian voyeurs they wouldn't be in church nor at the beach because it's a wintery Monday there, right? Therefore my deductive powers tell me THEY must be Voyeurs of the Western Hemisphere. I can see this being made into a best-selling book and then a mini-series or possibly an award-winning movie.

AussiePam;1321534 wrote: Spot, Spiders or spotted spiders?????? RUN Zappy!!!


Love your amoeba-like artwork, APPIE!!

AussiePam;1321365 wrote: There's actually 8 members here now, though only 5 are listed, and 877 non-posting guests. This is freaky. I think I'll make it 7 members. FAST.


This is one of the most stupid remarks I've ever read on any forum - why do you post your thoughts on the www if you don't want them to be read by ... anyone and everyone?

Anonymous or not.

probably;1321570 wrote: This is one of the most stupid remarks I've ever read on any forum - why do you post your thoughts on the www if you don't want them to be read by ... anyone and everyone?

Anonymous or not.


That's a very good point, probably. This is indeed a stupid thread, and the remark you quoted is also undeniably extremely stupid. But the "most stupid"?? :-3 ... I suppose you must be a relative newcomer to cyberspace. ... though "most stupid" is kinda neat in its own way. Sorry, those other ForumGardeners, who've striven so hard for so long for this prestigious title - to have it wrested from you and awarded by a newbie who likes clean sheets to undeserving little moi!! Who merely ran out of things to say of suitable gravitas and so waffled on meaninglessly.

I apologise to all our esteemed Members, Guests, hidden members, arachnoids, aliens and Spot. Read on in good health!

And Zappy, the amoebas are actually bullet holes. Fitting, doncha think, probably.

:sneaky:

Zapata;1321529 wrote: Does this mean that "THEY" are watching "US"? I'm gettin' outta here!


They won't see me Zap, I'm invisible!:sneaky::yh_rotfl

AussiePam;1321613 wrote: That's a very good point, probably. This is indeed a stupid thread, and the remark you quoted is also undeniably extremely stupid. But the "most stupid"?? :-3 ... I suppose you must be a relative newcomer to cyberspace. ... though "most stupid" is kinda neat in its own way. Sorry, those other ForumGardeners, who've striven so hard for so long for this prestigious title - to have it wrested from you and awarded by a newbie who likes clean sheets to undeserving little moi!! Who merely ran out of things to say of suitable gravitas and so waffled on meaninglessly.

I apologise to all our esteemed Members, Guests, hidden members, arachnoids, aliens and Spot. Read on in good health!

And Zappy, the amoebas are actually bullet holes. Fitting, doncha think, probably.

:sneaky:


Bullet holes! Ah yes, I see it now. I thought they resembled items on slides under the microscope in my daughter's lab, which are quite interesting in their own right. In your infinite wisdom and with your uncanny wit, you're probably correct, that that is fitting. I think, since it's your thread, that you can shoot holes in it if you want to.

AussiePam;1321613 wrote: That's a very good point, probably. This is indeed a stupid thread, and the remark you quoted is also undeniably extremely stupid. But the "most stupid"?? :-3 ... I suppose you must be a relative newcomer to cyberspace. ... though "most stupid" is kinda neat in its own way. Sorry, those other ForumGardeners, who've striven so hard for so long for this prestigious title - to have it wrested from you and awarded by a newbie who likes clean sheets to undeserving little moi!! Who merely ran out of things to say of suitable gravitas and so waffled on meaninglessly.

I apologise to all our esteemed Members, Guests, hidden members, arachnoids, aliens and Spot. Read on in good health!

And Zappy, the amoebas are actually bullet holes. Fitting, doncha think, probably.

:sneaky:


Very "Fitting" Pam:wah: