Just have to get this off my chest, How Should Boards Be Tracked?
 

Take a look at Board Tracker's tracking. This is not sour grapes, I promise. But, it is just idiotic to rank boards only by the number of replies.
http://www.boardtracker.com/cgi-bin/tools.pl?1

So, what do you think...
How should boards be ranked?

Oh yeah, I should mention that the straw that broke this camel's back was yesterday I saw a board jump from way low to way up because they had a contest that caused a lot of one word posts by a very few people. How does that help anyone?

Rating a board solely on number of posts is just moronic.

Especially when the board pays people to post or does things like have board games like bingo or is just never ending piss posts.

I agree Cleo
If for some reason you couldn't take the average of the 3, wouldn't the number of views be more important than the number of replies? Looking at the ranking list, it's easy to see the boards that have thread games. And, there is nothing wroing with that at all. Just don't use it for ranking. Look for a lot of replies and a lot less threads than normal.

Quality vs Quantity any time Quality wins :)

Yeah, but you can't really rank quality. I don't fault them for ranking based on numbers. I just think they should be more realistic in regards to the numbers they use. I mean, the way they rank, we could start a thread where we just post the number "1" and offer $$$ for whoever has the most posts in a thread. That would give us a huge reply count but would be worthless to webmasters and sponsors.

Number of views would be the best if I had to pick one of the above answers and not all of the above.

Total time spent visiting the board would be a good indicator of the quality of the board but I don't see how they could measure that.

Views probably would be best if you had to pick one. I guess it is the hardest to artificially pump up out of the rest.

Well Jim with what has been said then maybe an average but how does that tell ya what the board really has on it ?

Only by looking, I guess. But like I said, I have no problem with ranking based on numbers. But to rank by replies only is just plain foolish.

Oh I agree with ya on the ranking by # of replies for sure :) But it just don't seem to be the way to rank a webmaster resource for since allot of the places are only boards where they talk about shit that has not to do with the biz and really are not true webmaster resources :)

Well I have spent very little time on other boards and the short time was spent weeding through BULL SHIT..

Greenguy and Jim Is the best webmaster board in my book..

Hell even if i didnt make one fuckin dollar from what I learned here.. The great people here, I made friends with is worth it..

To many to list but a few Ranster greenguy Jim Mrmarylou surfn cleo Dangerdave Murry Urb XXX Jay Tommy Linkster Wazza Kezza..

And to be honest I am making a few bucks doing this - and its from hanging and reading here.. And asking questions..

Thanks for having me at the best dam board on the net..

Oh I voted The Average of All Above

IMO the number of views is the best barometer of success for a board.

there should be a mathematical equation that takes all the above into account (with replies given more weight in the equation imho)

Being mathematically challenged I'll leave the equation to to someone else :)

Its a very good issues you raise Jim.
In general, if it was possible to rank based on quality, we would do it without thinking twice. In fact, we were and are still thinking about the issue.

At the moment, BoardTracker ranks boards based on number of replies. Why? well, the idea was this, in some boards there are few threads but more replies per thread since people care about the thread. Thats in comparison with boards that many threads are about "I fucked your mama" that noone cares about. So we found number of replies to be better representing "quality" than just number of threads. A thread with no replies can be worth something, no doubt about it, but in general, we though that boards - which are a community tool and encourage discussion and exchange of information (otherwise it could be just a simple resource site) - is better when people are involved and reply to threads.

Indeed, spam threads are the best example for zero (or very little) value (in our humble opinion). However, they are not that common, usually occur once in a very while, and are not that effective and infuential in the long term.

BoardTracker does not aim to claim that the #1 board is the best quality one. IF you ask me personally, I would have very strong reservations (to say the least) with that statement/idea (and that is all I can say about that subject). BoardTracker ranks boards based on replies and that is all one should see it for. Spam threads may change a rank of a board a little for a short while, but wont change the rank on a board in the long term. Spam boards tend to either die, become spam-oriented or get rid of that behavior.

Remember that BoardTracker is far from being a "Board ranker". This is just a side issue and an added value (if you see this info as a value at all). The main purpose of BoardTracker is to get people closer to the boards and to discussions THEY care about. Be sure that very few people got alerts about the spam threads from BoardTracker and even fewer followed such alerts and posted in such a thread.

What I would be happy to hear from people is, how would you mathematically formulate an index of the quality of the boards.
If you had the number of Threads, replies, people that post or any other numerical info from the board, how would you mathematically rank the boards based on that?

Since you really are interested, I will try to come up with a formula.

Thanks

See, the problem is, you really don't want to use anything that is easy to artificially inflate. As I said, if I were to start a thread where I said, GreenguyandJim will give $$$ to the person that posts in this thread the most, we could easily jump up your list.

Threads are a little more difficult to inflate and views seem to me would be the most difficult. Take a look at your own stats. Look where there are many replies and few threads that are in the top 10. Then take a look at the board and most likely, someone is having a worthless contest of some sort. And some even post in the thread, we are just trying to get our post count up.

I know it is hard to rank as long as almost anything you can tangibly track can be inflated.

Threads are as easy to inflate as replies if you really wanted to. Offer $$$ for each new thread. So are views.

But what would it give you to inlate your post count, of thread cound or views for that matter in exchange for $$$?
I'll tell you what - losing $$$. That's about it. MAYBE you will be ranked a bit higher in BoardTracker for a while. You know what? If you (I don't mean you personally BTW but rather a general board owner) keep doing that maybe you will be ranked a little higher on BoardTracker for a while longer. But look what happened to boards who did that spam-threads in the past. I don't want to name any, but if you remember the history, you will see that the effect did not last and maybe even was negative.

Does SexTracker rank of TGPs show the quality of a TGP? Of for that matter, the quality of its traffic or effectiveness of advertising on it? No. In fact, it can be easily manipulated as well, even easier than post count on Boards.
But it is still there as a rough "guide" for some measuring scale for whoever cares about that.

Regardless, if you find formulas that you think are much better than simply replies, tell me. We have some ideas for better formulas btw (that we think will negate the influence of occasional spam threads) but we are still testing those ideas.

No, but they also don't rank the TGP's by the number of galleries they have listed, which is probably the same as ranking boards by the number of posts.

I'd try to figure out a way to rank them by "views" :)

Good point Greenie. How does sextracker rank TGPs? By the amount of traffic or, loosely translated...Number of "VIEWS"

XXXManager, if you are going to compare your ranking to that of sextrackers...at least rank the way they rank.

In a sense I think we do.
TGPs are all about VIEWS. They show how "good" the TGP is by showing that people SEE it. Thats not really how good the TGP is but they figure that a busy TGP must be "better" in a sense that those with no views.

In a forum, its not only about VIEWS but about the comminuty and its involvement - hence REPLIES and POSTS. Views in many boards are also generated by searchengine spiders, and in some boards, bored people that have nothing to do with the indstry who have nothing bette to do than read what they think is a "juicy" thread with some naked ladies showing in it. This is true for some boards at least. Wouldn't you agree?

Note btw, that even if we ranked based on views (which we don't think is better than replies), the ranks would not change much.

By views would measure me better. I come here several times everyday and try to read everything written that is not bull shit. Been doing it since day one, April,03. Now look at my posts - 300. What the people in the know have to say is important to me, but I only post when I really have something to offer.

I know this really does not help, but I agree with MrMaryLou, its all about quality. This is why I never even look at things like board ranks, I know it really means nothing!

cheers,
LUke

Well, I couldn't really vote; I don't think any of those three is the real measure of the value of a board. If boards were ranked by professionalism and usefulness, I thing GG&Jim would be at the top. When I want sound information, this is where I go.
I love the no BS policy of the "General Business Knowledge" forum.
Page views are of value to the board owner as well as the posters, but I don't believe they should be the true measure of a board. Post count, as stated above, is easy to inflate; new threads are easy, RELEVANT new threads are not.

Do board rankings matter at all? I mean- if you ranked #1 would you get a lot more visitors?

I think boardtracker is a great resource to get a nice broad view of things.

I'm registered on probably - dunno...10 boards. I post almost exclusively here...for better or worse. :D

It's pretty hard to judge a community based on numbers.

You can come up with a formula of some sort, but that's just a snapshot of an aspect of web traffic.

The community is all about the peeps, the posts and the PM's when all is said and done.

I feel this thread is more jim venting some hot air then any real call to action, but in any case, i will humor the idea.

if you are really intrested in coming up with a mathematical representation for the quality of a board you must first determine the factors that make up a quality board. then take these factors and quantify them.

i started to make up a list and ways to quantify the list items, but it became rather combersome, and i really do not have that much time to piss away.

orginally i voted to rank based on view count, but after giving it some consideration i would like to flip-flop and say that ranking based on reply count is a decent ranking method.

you could improve on that by ranking by mean reply count and then removing any outliers (high and low). essientally this would remove any spam (few replies) and contests (many replies).

You're right bret...I just had to get it off my chest :) I am most likely going to shut down the poll and I just unstuck the thread. I was just curious if anyone at all agreed with the way boardtracker ranked resource sites. I know there is no meaningful way for a resource site to be ranked based on numbers alone.

Anyway...nothing to see here. Go about your business :)

While it is possible to accurately describe what occurs (or doesn't) on boards in terms of posting activity, ranking boards on 'quality' isn't possible. Quality ultimately depends on opinions and variables such as value, things that vary from individual to individual as well as situation to situation.

Every board is it's own unique social networking circle (or strives to be), each with strengths and weaknesses. You want hype or a shitstorm started you post certain places, you want serious discourse and discussion you may very well post someplace else. There is value in both of these, but they aren't often found in same place.

Wal-Mart can be considered a 'quality' general merchandise store. Products might not be the greatest, but they cover alot and their target market responds to that utility. You wouldn't go there to buy fur coat or new mobo for example. But then again, Cartier doesn't carry Rubbermaid and potting soil, nor does TigerDirect...

All you say above is very true.
Bret - your idea is exactly one of the things we have been considering (thats why I hinted about filtering out the spam threads). The furstrating list you tried to create - we tried the same. Thats why we started with the reply count - lack of better formula. We are still looking.
Something I want to talk to mention is this..
We are thinking about a rank system, where people can vote on boards. (This will be only for premium members, to eliminate cheaters and spammers). Ranks will be made per board based on several criterias. This is still in infancy and we did not finish it yet. It will come with another feature (which I hope the premium members will find interesting) but I rather wait before announcing it.

In general, we are looking for ways to make the best of of people's willingness to cmmunicate and be involved in the community. We think that communities is what makes the business stronger and more successful - for the community as a whole as well as for the individuals. If you have any ideas, we would love to hear them.

Am I correct in saying that you guys don't count the 1st post in a thread because, when a thread is started, the "replies" area shows a zero?

& IMHO, you should be ranking things by the "views" area - hell, you already have it in the search results - just change the script to look one cell over for the totals :D

I agree that there is no formula for quality. And really, the only problem I have is that "replies" are clearly the easiest to inflate. I point you to a past "Greenguy Rant".
http://www.greenguysboard.com/newsle...sletter31.html
I have no idea if you guys tracked then but if you did, clearly the board mentioned in the Rant would have ranked number 2 if not number 1 for a month or more. Although BoardTracker would have ranked that board that high, BoardTracker would have been the only site, program, person that would have thought that an accurate number.

So, I guess here is an idea. Why not ignore threads that are started just to inflate the numbers? It seems it would be easy to do...you have all the numbers. If you see a board jump much more than usual, take a look and see why.

It has to be views because posts are just the content of a board. Views are a measure of how many people read that content.

A lot of posts I see on other boards just contain a quote and a smilie.

:D

Have a coke and a smilie :D

Damn - now I feel bad for inflating our reply totals |jester|

|jester|

that is what i was getting at when i said use the mean reply count and remove outliers, if a board gets an unusal amount of replies to a thread, the forumla would ignore that thread. it helps to keep the data focused, sort of how the judging in an olypmic event works, the highest and lowest ratings are thrown away. but in this case, any extremely high or low thread when be thrown out of the dataset, not just the absolute highs and lows.

Is there a way to include length of posts in the ranking? I know with sig files & constant quoting of the original post it wouldn't be exact, but would certainly exclude the useless posts.

the problem with doing that would be the amount of data that the boardtracker spider would have to parse would be huge. imagine continuously spidering every thread on gfy for new posts and keeping track of the average length of all those posts.

a) the demand for a "proven" ranking system would have to be there to constitute such a ranking system

b) that ranking system would have to be proven to work substantialy better then a "quick and crude" ranking system.

That makes sense, Bret. The trackers are already handy as hell, so no worries. :)