Alchemy discussion forum > Welcome > Information about Alchemy discussion Forum > Statistics for the Alchemy Discussion Forum
Alchemy discussion forum > Welcome > Information about Alchemy discussion Forum > Statistics for the Alchemy Discussion Forum |
|
| Moderated by: alchemyd | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
alchemyd Administrator
|
There are only a small number of registered members of this discussion forum, however, it is open to the wider internet alchemical community to read the postings. Here is a chart of the latest statistics. It shows that the postings are being read widely and attests to the success of this method of serious scholarly discussion. Attached Image (viewed 2754 times): Last edited on Tue Feb 24th, 2009 09:25 pm by alchemyd |
|||||||||
|
Paul Ferguson Member 
|
Do you have some recent figures? Paul |
|||||||||
|
alchemyd Administrator
|
Here are more up to date statistics: Attached Image (viewed 2430 times): Last edited on Mon May 24th, 2010 03:20 pm by alchemyd |
|||||||||
|
Alexander Guthrie Stewart Member
|
How do you find it compares to the e-mail discussion list you used to run? I imagine it is easier one some ways, not having to check your inbox every day, but I wonder if you're getting the same number of people through here? Although of course numbers isn't so important, but as long as people are finding it a useful resource that is all right. |
|||||||||
|
adammclean Member 
|
Alexander Guthrie Stewart wrote: How do you find it compares to the e-mail discussion list you used to run? The previous email discussion groups I organised on alchemy all degenerated into nonsense. It is a nightmare trying to deal with belief driven Jungians and esotericists. This incarnation of the alchemy discussion group has been consistently of a high standard and everyone is courteous to one another. If one searches the internet one can easily find other discussion groups on alchemy. These are full of posturing and nonsense as to be completely worthless. I wonder if you're getting the same number of people through here? Although of course numbers isn't so important I have not tried to promote the discussion group and increase the numbers of subscribers, as I know this would lead to problematic individuals joining. I know many of these people from before and they get very annoyed if you refuse them access. There are many manipulative people, in present day alchemy, driven by strange agendas, who eventually drive all the sensible people away. Indeed they usually target the major contributors, as they want to become the "leader of the pack", as they see it. I have personally asked a number of scholars to join the group, but they never do. I can only suppose their reluctance arises from the fact that they may have had bad experiences on discussion groups in the past, or they may be reluctant to post something that may prove incorrect and then they might feel they have damaged their scholarly reputation. It is probably easier for scholars merely to write articles, as they don't then find their ideas or research picked about in a public space. I also insist on people using their real names, and this stops some people from joining. It does, however, make people feel responsible for what they post, as they cannot hide behind some silly pseudonym. This discussion group IS a considerable success. To see this just look at the bottom line. There have been nearly 900,000 page views over the period of two years. Consider a printed scholarly journal such as Cauda Pavonis. In the ten years of its publication have over 90,000 people even glanced at one of its pages ? I think not. Last edited on Tue May 25th, 2010 01:00 pm by adammclean |
|||||||||
|
alchemyd Administrator
|
Here are the forum statistics updated to August 2011. Attached Image (viewed 1948 times): Last edited on Mon Aug 1st, 2011 04:59 pm by alchemyd |
|||||||||
|
Paul Ferguson Member
|
Hi Adam, Any chance of an update to cover the rest of 2011? My impression is that the number of visitors has increased. |
|||||||||
|
adammclean Member
|
Here are the current statistics. Attached Image (viewed 1828 times): Last edited on Wed Jan 11th, 2012 02:34 pm by adammclean |
|||||||||
|
adammclean Member
|
Here is a larger image. I have had to divide it into two parts due to the limitations on the size of jpegs on the board. Attached Image (viewed 1876 times): |
|||||||||
|
adammclean Member
|
The second part. Attached Image (viewed 1841 times): |
|||||||||
|
Paul Ferguson Member
|
As I suspected, a steady and substantial increase. Whenever I log on viewers almost always seem to be in double figures, which must be very gratifying for you Adam given the very specialised nature of the forum. |
|||||||||
|
adammclean Member
|
As the Alchemy discussion forum provides a positive space for exploring alchemy through a scholarly perspective, it has survived and prospered. Most open discussion forums on alchemy quickly degenearate into pointless posturing and people pretending to be someone they are not. The only thing I find is that, sadly, few scholars have joined us. Perhaps they find it worrying to engage in pursuing ideas in a forum open to the world, preferring to write formal articles. I had hoped that more would have seen this forum as a safe place in which to pursue alchemical ideas without fear of being dragged into esoteric nonsense. Perhaps, given time, they will. I wish also I had more time to engage in research and was able to make more postings here, but I find myself, at the moment, entirely buried in book publishing. Last edited on Tue Jan 24th, 2012 04:55 pm by adammclean |
|||||||||
|
Paul Ferguson Member
|
Can we see the 2012 figures? |
|||||||||
|
alchemyd Administrator
|
Here are the Jan 2013 statistics with data going back to 02/2010. Unfortunately the jpg is too large and the board software is resizing it and in consequence making it hard to read. Attached Image (viewed 1614 times): Last edited on Sun Jan 13th, 2013 05:44 pm by alchemyd |
|||||||||
|
Paul Ferguson Member
|
Can we see the 2013 figures please? |
|||||||||
|
adammclean Member
|
Here are the latest figures, for the last two years. These seem to be holding steady. Attached Image (viewed 739 times): |
|||||||||