How many DUers are there? An analysis.

[Blitz]

The number in the lobby is 28,713 but I was looking at the primary poll, where 711 people have voted, and I started to wonder how many DUers there are who actually post on DU. This thread is not meant to either bash or laud DU but is an exercise in trying to understand just what kind of community we are a part of. If the mods feel that this thread is better suited to the lounge, please move it there.

On to the half-assed, amateur analysis:

First of all, while the lobby tells us that there are 28,713 users (as of the writing of this post), adding up all of the users on the user profiles page gives us 23,126 users (again, as of the writing of this post):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&index=V

I don't know which number is more correct.

Second, there are many, many nicks at DU which apparently count as "registered users" which are, in fact, no such thing. For example, I doubt that much mileage was gotten out of the following nicks, all of which are all part of the 23,126 registered users counted on the profiles page (and, therefore, are probably part of the 28,713 number) (I apologize in advance if any of the following are actual users; this is NOT an attempt to flame or belittle any user and the following nicks are given as examples with the belief that they are currenly inactive (nearly all of the nicks have been checked and have 0 or close to 0 posts)):

democrap
DemocratIsJackass
democrats_are_losers
Democrats_BLOW_COCK
Democrats_r_babies
DemokRAT
DemoNot
demosuck
Bush34President
BushGirl
BUSHISGOD
bush_41
Bush_in_04
Repub
Republi
republicanjoe
Republicanone
Republicans4ever
RepublicanTeamLeader
RepublicanThug
reaganlover
LiberalsareLosers
liberalssuckass
Conservative
CoNsErVaTiVe15YeaROlD
CoNsErVaTiVe15YRoLd
conservative24
ConservativeKay
Conservatives4bush
ConservativeTruth
Conservative_Jew
ConserVet
conserv_ative
Ashcroft
whitetrashredneck
SaddomizeHussein
NukeTheWhales
YessirAtsaFact
YoMomma
youngrepublican
warmonger
warpig
WayRight
UndercoverRight
Right Wing
RightAway
Rightisalwaysrigh
rightofrush
RightOnline1
Rightwilderness
RightWinger4ever
righty
Rightytighty
RITEWINGER
RonaldReagan
RonnyReagan
RubyRidge
Rumsfeld
rummy
RushLimbaugh
demseatme
Demslovechimpspunk
Dumm0Crap
dummycraps
DumoRat
dumbass
dumbpolack1
DUISTHEENEMY
dubya04
DrudgeReport
Drooling Freeper
freeper_troll
onepatrioticrepublican
iateyourcat
IchLiebeGeorgeWBush
idf4eva
idontwantaname
IHateDemocrats
ikillcommies
ihateevery1butumost
ihatelibrals
IMRight
israelwasabadidea
islamicjihad
Jewish_Conservative_withagun
J_W_Booth
Just_checking
Just_Looking
just_lurking
justtesting
justlooking
Jihadmama
jack_ruby
H8America
H8American
HairyPalms
HairyPalms2
HangingSaddamByHisNutsack
Hater_of_Dems
Heywood Jablomi
hussein
HillaryIsaClown
Elephant
Elephant1
Elephant2
Elephant3
elephantstampede
extremeright
ex_democrat
kittenslayer
KittenStomper
SaddamHater
Shahid_al_Shabaaz
slutty_white_girl
stopDemjackasses
Test
test1234
test2001
test69
testaccount
Testing
testing1234
testing12345
testuser
TheRightStuff
TO ALL OF YOU BENEDICT ARNOLDS
Toby_Keith
tombstone
troll1
trollingforfun
TrollPatrol
troll_mangafee
t_nugent
Trojan Mule
CarpetBomb
Chirac_is_Next
closetconservative
corporarateoppressor
curious_conservative
mark4boortz
majetteally
masshole
MeetYourAllahSoon
mightyrighty
Paleo_Con
PASSING_THROUGH
PeaceJustAsSoonAsWeWinThisWar
penislicker
NEWT
Newt Gingrich
newter
newtman
newsmanontheright
Pleasedonotbanme
Pleasedontbanme
prettypleasedontbanme

Naturally, this is just a sampling of some of the most obvious nicks. The next question is how many of the 23,126 posters (I'm assuming that the other 5,500+ have been banned or otherwise removed) actually post. Well, the admins might be able to answer that accurately but I wanted to get a rough idea so I looked at 100 arbitrarily selected nicks (Nell to NewYorkerfromMass (and not counting the various "Newt" nicks and "newsmanontheright" so as to eliminate obvious non-DUers that have already been noted)). The problem with this is that several posters (14) had disabled their profiles, so it was impossible to tell anything about their post count. Therefore, I looked at an additional 14 users (now Nell to nhliberal, not counting 4 more disabled profiles) so that I could have 100. The 100 profiles broke down as follows:

0 posts: 45%
1 post: 10%
2-5 posts: 11%
6-10 posts: 4%
11-50 posts: 4%
51-100 posts: 7%
100-200 posts: 7%
200-500 posts: 4%
500-1000 posts: 4%
1000-2000 posts: 1%
3000-4000 posts: 1%
6000-7000 posts: 1%
42,000-43,000 posts: 1% (guess who)

If this sample is representative of the DU population (and I believe that it is a statistically significant sample), then it can be concluded that, of the 23,126 active users, there are some 10,406 (45%) that have registered but never posted and an additional 5,782 (25%) who have not posted in any significant volume (10 or fewer posts). Moreover, approximately 1,850 have over 500 posts and just under 1,000 users have over 1,000 posts.

What these statistics don't tell us is what percentage of these posters are active. For example, how many of the high-post-count posters have posted in the last 3 months? Last 6? Past year? I am under the impression that someone who registered 2 years ago, racked up 500 posts in a month and never posted again would still be among the registered users list with 500 posts to his or her name. This also doesn't tell us about lurkers so, while the number of posters can be (relatively) small, the audience may be much, much bigger. Perhaps the admins know how many unique reads the site gets per day or have another way of guaging this.

There are any number of other factors that are worth considering. For example, some user have multiple nicks. Others apparently forgot their nick or password and simply reregistered with a similar sounding nick (resulting in many similar nicks with nearly identical spellings).

Anyway, that's my amateur analysis. It leads me to the conclusion that DU is a large community but does not have anything approaching 28,000 actual (as opposed to "registered") users. A more accurate number would probably be something that is 10% of that (taking into account users with a significant number of posts (arbitrarily 100+, which gives us about 4,394 (19%)) and allowing for the fact that a significant (but unknown) portion of them are probably inactive.

I hope you found this interesting (and, with respect to the nicks cited above, amusing) and that it helps to clarify the nature and scope of the DU community. I look forward to your comments.

[Sinistrous]

1. Thank you! That is quite a piece of work.

I have often wondered about that count of Registered Users, and how many of them were really active and how many have been tombstoned.

I also got a mild warm fuzzy when I noted that my anemic post count is not the lowest of the low.

Sir Lurksalot, aka

[Skinner]

2. Interesting analysis

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to add up the active accounts.

You might be interested in this additional piece of information.

Our old software wasn't powerful enough to compile any of our access statistics. But the new software can crunch the numbers.

Here are some stats from ONE DAY: Monday, July 7, 2003 (Yesterday)...

Total Unique IP addresses: 3618
Total posts on the Board: 12430 (one post every 7 seconds)

So, we've got 3618 unique visitors who click into the message board in one day. (The message board doesn't count IPs that read our homepage but never click into the forum.)

You can be certain that the total number of unique IPs is much higher for a week-long period, and even higher over a month.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Nice benefit on the software upgrade

It would be nice to publish the site statistics over time. I suspect that DU readership will continue to grow as more people tire of the starvation diet that they are fed in the broadcast media sector.

Do you track general hits to the site? I infer that these stat's you note are for log-in users. How about uniqueIP's who only access to read? I gotta believe that there are close to 100 readers for every poster.

[Mairead]

9. how about doing some queries to determine longitudinal nums?

To capture people who are rather active (e.g. last logged in not more than a week ago with a record at least 3 months long) the php code for this would be something like:

$q = "SELECT user_id FROM user_table WHERE last_in >= '20030701' AND first_in <= '20030401'" ;
$dset = mysql_query ( $q ) ;
if ( $dset ) if (( $recs = mysql_num_rows( $dset)) > 0 )
{
echo 'Number of users who have logged in since last week and who first logged in 3 or more months ago is' . $recs . '<br>' ;
}


if you just load the mysql command line utility, you could get the number for us within moments, and I daresay we'd all like to know what it is. :evilgrin:

[mrfrapp]

13. Not necessarily unique.

Total Unique IP addresses: 3618
Total posts on the Board: 12430 (one post every 7 seconds)

So, we've got 3618 unique visitors who click into the message board in one day.


That doesn't necessarily follow. If a visitor posted from several
different IP addresses then that number of "unique vistors" is inflated.
If everyone had a static address then that would seem unlikely, but
dial-up users will most likely get several different addresses a day.
For example, up until a few weeks ago (I now have broadband :-)
I was checking the DU forums several times in a day and each visit would
have had come from a different address.

Can you not analyse the data by grouping IP addresses with login IDs?
That would produce more meaningful information I think.

[KoKo]

17. What about "dial-up" users who stay logged in? How are they counted?

Is everytime I hit onto DU counted as a different user? If I check in while I'm working 20 times a day, does that count as 20 hits? Or what if (as I do sometimes) just keep DU on my tray and click on LBN or GD every hour or so.....?

Does one have to Log Out and Log Back In to be counted.

It must be very hard to do a really accurate total with all these variables.........

[bearfartinthewoods]

21. yeah...my ISP has recently instituted a "bump" policy during peak usage

which means that by the time i finish reading a longish thread, i could be disconnected due to idle time and have to reconnect. i bet this happens to me 20 times a day. not to mention another 20+ times a day when i disconnect for a phone call or move from studio to home to bedroom computer.

sorry to screw up the unique ISP figures but likely, on monday, 40 of those users were me and she-bear.

[DUreader]

23. 20-40 a day from here too, and I relog in almost every time

Due to having a fake cookie file I have to relogin every time

as well as sharing the computer with another DUser

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OrdinaryTa]

29. Ripples of Cybertalk

Considering that we are dedicated, resourceful and tough as nails, the ripples of our cybertalk and real-world action should not be underestimated.

Bingo. DU certainly spoiled my estimation of the New York Times, which is held forth as a significant opinion leader. I used to think it was as fair and unbiased as they claimed it was. After letting my subscription lapse for various reasons, I now read it only occasionally. Yesterday, finding a stray copy on the seat next to me, I wondered how I ever found it tolerable - it's flabby and conceited.

DU is lean and mean, with some really smart people. Something good is bound to come of this. DU people are going to make even more of an impact when Americans start respecting intelligence once again. We are finding out what happens when stupidity rules: endless problems!

[Blitz]

4. Kick!

Self-kick.

[jiacinto]

5. That number also includes people who were banned

So take that into consideration. Also I do think there are lurkers who just don't post here.

[Blitz]

7. I realize that

I think I mentioned that about half way through the analysis. Some 5,000 people (well, IP addresses/nicks) banned. That would make gor quite a graveyard. Someone had suggested creating one a short time ago. I hope that the admins do it, if its feasible.

[TheBigGuy]

8. Pretty good....but I do notice this..

theres a critical mass of posters or frequent posters to keep at least GD and Lounge fairly active.

This isn't a board were just a few people are having a conversation, or posting frequency is so small there topics stay at the top of a thread.

I think there is probably some percentage of core posters, and a "passing through" group...who may not rack up many posts while they are here.

I must confess that I do have two registrations that I dont use anymore..J_Lo and Pocho87...as I forgot the password. J_Lo should have quite a few posts associated with it.

[JohnKleeb]

10. my old sns are still active

I wasnt ban I lost my passwords whatever its a long story if you wanna see how shy I was look at JHKleeb and JohnHKleeb24 thats me over a year ago.

[Blitz]

11. Yup, I noticed that

Along with some other people's nicks (such as at least 3 versions of WillPitt, but I don't know if it's Will or his fans). It looks like a lot of times someone will have registered only to discover that they have a typo in their name and, not wanting to look foolish for their entire time at DU, re-register sans typo (for some people, this apparently required several attempts :-) ).

[salin]

20. then again sometimes nicks folks want are taken

so they chose a similar one.

It would be a mistake to attribute all of the "sals" on one form or another to the same nick. Or all the three similar variations of my nick - salin, saline, saleen. I have only found the others through the new feature. But salin has only registered once. The other two are different posters.

Just wanted to point out that similar nicks does not always mean same person forgetting their info initially and taking new nicks.

[Blitz]

16. It's funny

One of the very first responses that I ever got to a comment on DU (in the FA/NS dungeon, I believe) was someone asking me how many nicks I had before this one and (iirc) calling me a freeper (I actually had to look it up). Apparently, coming back with nick after nick after being banned is not an altogether uncommon practice (I have also seen some DUers talking about doing just that at FR).

[KoKo]

12. My guess.......from observation is maybe five to six thousand who are

steady posters.....and a smaller percentage who can be counted on when we do "DU Alerts."

However.......I think during the Summer and Holidays we get huge amounts of posters who are young and don't always have the time to be reading DU and posting when they are busy with highschool/college.

Also, some of our really active "old time" DU'ers are "fighting for their lives" in jobs where they are clinging to a salary.......and can't post as much as they would like in the last year........

I've only been here about six months into when DU was founded.......but that's now a long time. And, I have a high post count......and still recognize some of the "originals who were here when I lurked" before joining.

But, I think we could have ten to fifteen thousand who check us regularly, but can't post, or don't post for one reason or another (time, job, shyness..whatever) but that steady core of five to six thousand are the ones who can devote the time, for whatever reason who sort of "hold down the Fort" so that the other thousands can come and go.....or lurk and read...or whatever.


Just my opinion.........and I'm not a "math" person.......so this is just observation from my over two years here. :-)'s

BTW! How W'eve GROWN, though! I remember when there were maby ten regular posters and the board wouldn't change for almost a week for new posts.

So, there are obviously LOTS of folks HERE!!!!!!!! Off and On and Whatever........but they are here!

[Kellanved]

14. kick

great analysis
:kick:

[SteveG]

15. There are a lot of Semi-Lurkers and Lurkers

I've been a member using this signon, since very shortly after the election of 2000. and I have a low post count. On the other hand I read these boards (primarily general discussion and LBN every day). I would suspect that there are a fair number of registered members who fit this catagory.

[Jax]

18. Me too SteveG

Think I might fit the category you describe. I came here when I saw the democraticunderground banner at the 'inagrusham' in Jan 01. Think I got a password in Feb 01, can't remember for sure.

There is SO much excellent reading to absorb here at DU--all of it, the entire site not just these very, very good discussion forums--that I happily spend more time reading and learning here than I do posting on the forums. Love to post when I can, LBN is, has been my number one news source for awhile now. This is a rich community of knowledge and discussion. A must read daily for me.

Jax

[newyawker99]

19. kick

:kick:

[DemDogs]

24. Lurked for a long time

I have been reading for a long time, finally decided to start posting. Truthfully the anger stuff kept me off. And if the hatred at other Dems starts to get too hot, I will probably stop posting.
Hope the new improvements will mean an improved atmosphere, too.

[T Roosevelt]

22. I've been wondering this myself...

how many members post and how active they are. I've put up a poll in the Lounge:

How often do you post on DU? An analysis.

I realize this poll will have to stay around awhile (at least a week) to be statistically valid, but I figured it might fun anyway...

[ProfessorGAC]

25. A Dispassionate Critique

I don't quibble with your approach, but there are a few underlying assumptions that are fully unsupported.

Assumptions, that cannot be supported without further research need to be VERY strongly revealed. Not saying you didn't, but these assumptions probably need iterative admission.

Comparing post counts to activity is one such assumption. Your assumption is that this link exists. It might. It might not. A lot more work would be required to prove that link. Without that link, your analysis just derives a hypothesis, but no proofs.

Secondly, you admit to making an assumption regarding similar nicks. That one, however, is probably a fairly small fraction of the whole, so may not even be relevant to the final analysis.

Finally, your analysis plays both ends against the middle. That's something i would rank heavily in a student did that in my class. You bring up lurkers to support the active number may be higher, but then mention high volume posters who haven't been back in a year.

When an analyst posits a hypothesis based upon the data, it's either pro or con. Not both. One either proves the hypothesis or its null. Your analysis appears to be trying to prove both at different times. That puts the reader in no better place than before he/she read the analysis.

I'll not comment on the actual content of the analysis, as i don't really think i care how many active DU'ers there are. The more the better, but any number is better than none. I'm just critiqueing your approach to the analysis, based upon the things i've taught people for years.


Take this for what it is. No offense intended. You wanted comment. I provided same.
The Professor

[catpower2000]

26. Sidenote: Repub was an actual member...

He posted for a long time, and many people here miss him (he was before my time, but that's what I've gathered). So he really shouldn't be on that list with the disruptors.

Cat

[opihimoimoi]

27. THANK YOU for all the hard work. Appreciate it very much.

A tad flawed perhaps, as the prof sez, bur still good in my eyes.

Come, we count the days to when Sanuty and Reason ewturns to the White House.

[onyourleft]

28. Very nice work.

I guess I would qualify as one of the semi-lurkers. I have been here since anthrax 24/7 broke and, obviously, I do not have many posts. However, because I am self-employed, many hours (perhaps too many :)) of my day are spent here reading or checking LBN. Why do I not post more often? Usually because my thoughts have already been posted by someone and why repeat.

Again, I found your analysis very interesting.

[catmandu57]

30. Sometimes I think I live here

and it feels good to be in the core. Of those banned and quesionable nics, at least they've been exsposed to a different (I believe better) way of thinking. No matter high or low posts, lurker or active we have definetly had an impact on American life and politics, we are a pac. You can thank the administrators and moderaters for the long list of tombstoned nics, they took their cheap shot and are gone, maybe a banned graveyard prominently displayed would discourage further disruptions? Good work, do a little refining as the professor suggests, but it's a damn good start.

[RichM]

31. Interesting. You must have laughed yourself sick going thru the nicks

that are obviously non-serious! Some of them are pretty hilarious:

Pleasedontbanme
CarpetBomb
PeaceJustAsSoonAsWeWinThisWar
TO ALL OF YOU BENEDICT ARNOLDS
stopDemjackasses
NukeTheWhales

all merit admiration for ingenuity.

Your analysis jibes with my gut feel - a few thousand active posters, tops. I'd guess that (?) most posts probably come from less than a thousand.