It's a sad fact of life that I lack an espresso machine right now. That's why I don't post much.

I have cool memorabilia though! -> ->

I thought 20 times about not posting this and once about posting it.

TeMpTiN wrote:Andy,
Do they have one those over at portafilter.net?


I did not think about this post nearly long enough

Yes, but it works in reverse.

TeMpTiN wrote:while i have been a member of HB for two year i was reading here and over at CG for a bit before that. Both are good resources but i believe that this board is a a bit more focused and because many of the people here are not the type to compromise on quality this drives up the costs involved, as well as average age experience of the people who afford to maintain this kind of hobby. To me this helps keep things civil and the high school politics to a minimum. If i had the kind of money i have spent and am looking to spend on coffee equipment in high school or college,............ well some things should just be left to the imagination.

I think this is exactly right. The audience - I think mostly by design - has a pretty high degree of coffee experience/enthusiasm, a pretty high standard for what constitutes "entry level" equipment and is mostly around recreational espresso (i.e. not professional), AND wants to be part of a community like this. When you plug in all the variables, I just don't think there are that many of us out there.

For better or for worse, CG is more entry level. HB is more focused. People are going to lurk longer to make sure they are up to speed before they start contributing and there are simply fewer of these people to begin with.

I'm curious, is there some kind of stat for lurkers? I know I was for a long time. In a way, I think HB's mission is being served if a lot of people are lurking. That's a lot of information dissemination going on.

ManSeekingCoffee wrote:I'm curious, is there some kind of stat for lurkers? I know I was for a long time. In a way, I think HB's mission is being served if a lot of people are lurking. That's a lot of information dissemination going on.

I haven't tracked it regularly, but last I checked, lurkers outnumbered regular (logged in) members 15 to 1. The number of non-posting members versus regularly posting members is another order of magnitude.

HB wrote:I haven't tracked it regularly, but last I checked, lurkers outnumbered regular (logged in) members 15 to 1. The number of non-posting members versus regularly posting members is another order of magnitude.

This makes absolute sense. Many people will lurk, and that's a good thing. Some will post once or twice perhaps and, having received an answer to their question, may move on . . .

HB wrote:I haven't tracked it regularly, but last I checked, lurkers outnumbered regular (logged in) members 15 to 1. The number of non-posting members versus regularly posting members is another order of magnitude.

Are they "non-posting members" or are they "regularly posting members" who are scanning the board without logging in?

Some people clean out all their browser cookies regularly, or refuse to accept cookies in the first place, or log in and out only when they intend to post. I do that here and on the other (non-coffee related) board in which I participate. Some people use multiple computers, at home and at work, and the ones at work may be set up that way, or the users may not wish to have their employers track their online activity.

I would be willing to bet that your ratio of 15-1 does not take this into consideration, and that the true ratio is a whole lot less.

ken

OT: Could go either way. If it were my board, I'd be logging IP's so whether you logged in or not, I'd know it was you... except for poor buggers with dddddial-up

HB wrote:Here's an interesting statistic on infrequent posters: More than 15% of the FAQ-worthy threads were initiated by those with 10 or less posts. Approximately 35% of the FAQ-worthy threads were initiated by members with less than 40 posts.

And here's another interesting one:

I have over 100 posts and I didn't even know this "FAQ-worthy threads" page existed.

(Time for some reading......)

Ken Fox wrote:I would be willing to bet that your ratio of 15-1 does not take this into consideration, and that the true ratio is a whole lot less.

The "WHO IS ONLINE" list at the bottom of the forum index includes who logged in over the past 24 hours. The rest of the site statistics are collected using Google Analytics. It's presumably smart enough to filter IP information like those from bots, absolute visitors, return visitors, etc. Trust me, the 15-to-1 ratio of logged in users to lurkers is accurate enough for the purpose of this discussion.