Who reads FR? [FReepathon thread 9.6]

Conservapedia-An Illustrated Guide ^ | Jan 18, 2011

[bezelbub]

At www.freerepublic.com, we find the question Who reads FR? to be answered in the following way:

Over 300,000 people have registered for posting privileges on Free Republic since inception in 1996 and our forum is read daily by over one hundred thousand freedom loving citizens and patriots from all around the country, and all around the world. We're currently delivering over thirty million pageviews per month to over one million visitors.

This number of 300,000 users is sometimes quoted (i.e., "On one conservative Web site, Freerepublic.com, some of the site's 300,000 registered users have recently used discussion threads to encourage votes for Bristol." - www.people.com), and adorns the front page of freerepublic since Dec 2008 (waybackmachine.com).
But it was wrong then - and it is still wrong now.

So, why aren't there 300,000 freepers?

When registering for posting privileges, any user gets an identification number. The user normally doesn't see this ID, it is only used for internal purposes. Jim Robinson got the number 1, the number 100,000 is taken by The 100,000th FReeper! Unfortunately, these consecutive numbers seem to have been assigned at the beginning of the registration process, not after a successful creation of an account. So each failed try to register increased the used ids, but not the number of accounts. Both numbers diverged pretty fast, but the bug wasn't mended until Feb 2010, when the new mile-stone of 350,000 attempted registrations arrived. By then, the two numbers differed by roughly 100,000. In fact, when freerepublic announced to have 300,000 registered users for the first time ind Dec 2008, the number really was closer to 230,000 - and today, it is less than 270,000.

And what has been done about it?

The way the powers-to-be have chosen to get the numbers right is obvious: they wait for the reality to fit the stated fact. The number of created accounts wasn't updated for two years, and probably won't be changed for another two years, until the number of registered freepers meets the announcement on the front page.

Just for the record: I think that the number of pageviews and visitors are correct. And I doubt that the makers of the site willingly inflated the numbers of created accounts. It seems to be just an honest mistake, and an easy one to make. But when they found the bug, wouldn't it have been the right thing to change the number, as they knew that it was false?

[TheMom]

Seven years ago today on January 18, 2004, I arrived in Iraq for the very first time.

I don't think your right in the head.

[presently no screen name]

It's the failure to stick around and discuss their post that grates me

Those are the threads that should be deleted, IMO. Post and run wimps - nothing conservative about that.

[humblegunner]

Impromptu fund raiser threads seem to be the order of the day!

[DJ MacWoW]

The numbers that really count in my opinion, are not number of Freepers but number of external views (that, according to all external analysis websites, reach into the millions per day). That shows influence.

100% agreement.

[FourtySeven]

You forget the zots also decouple the actual number of users from the user ID numbers.

The real issue is: Who cares?

[presently no screen name]

Posting a thread and running like hell is just a drive-by shooting and deserves only scorn.

EXACTLY!! They aren't convinced of the propaganda they post.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Hey, I grabbed a number on the “serving next” machine and it hasn’t appeared yet! When will I be served?

[BlueDragon]

"It's the failure to stick around and discuss their post that grates me"
Those are the threads that should be deleted, IMO. Post and run wimps - nothing conservative about that.

There sure isn't much HONEST about it either. When they admit upfront that it is their own blog...at least it's better than those who won't answer when asked directly --- "is this yours? Why post it here?", etc.

Its rather infuriating. It's like saying, hey, this forum isn't good enough for me other than to use it to drive readers to see what EYE have to say.

For those who do use this forum to promote their own blogs, then something more than a sentence or two would be helpful, like maybe a few paragraphs, enough to make a point, rather than just a "teaser". I hate that crap.

We've all been marketed to, all our lives. What those wishing to market their own product need to learn is, don't piss off the 'customer', nor those whom allow space in a market venue, itself.

All it would take is a little polite effort on their part, and possibly a few direct answers. BUT no-ooo, it's beneath many of them to speak with the plebeians. It's like, EYE talk-- you LISTEN!

It's enough to make me taking up chewing tobacco, so I could have something to spit in their "eye".

[DJ MacWoW]

Keep Free Republic Soaring

Please Donate

[Allegra]

I don't think you're right in the head.

I think you're right. ;-)

[diji]

touched base with Mrs. Dogood lately, eh?

[presently no screen name]

It's like, EYE talk-- you LISTEN!

Well said. That's it exactly.

It's enough to make me taking up chewing tobacco, so I could have something to spit in their "eye".

LOL! I'd rather their threads be deleted - so they'd get a birds EYE view of what conservatism is - like turning off MSM - my mind isn't for their use to persuade. Like you say. this forum isn't good enough for me other than to use it to drive readers to see what EYE have to say.

I could give a flip what a coward has to - he/she's not convinced of what they say but wants to convince me? While it's laughable, I wouldn't allow them even the opportunity for them to attempt it by pulling the plug on their life support.

[Larry Lucido]

Ah, but is it good enough for Travis McGee? :-)

[bezelbub]

Well, that’s all well and good, but I repeat, who cares?

Obviously, I do - and I thought you should...

The inactive accounts are people who registered screen names but never activated their accounts. Don’t know if he still does it or not, but John used to purge the unactivated accounts after a month or so.

Indeed? Then he hasn't purged anything since Feb 2010, and/or the registration process has changed. OTOH, these purges have been quite selective, as thousands of obvious automatically generated spam accounts haven't been erased (have a look at all the accounts with "webcam" in the name), even before Feb 2010 (the month of the last purge).

We still have somewhere in the general neighborhood of 300,000 registered screen names.

If we are taking the same criterion as in Dec 2008 when the number was changed to 300,000 (i.e. ID numbers assigned), we have way surpassed the general neighborhood of 300,000 registered screen names. There are more than 370,000 ID numbers assigned. But at least 100,000 don't match editors who have completed the activation process. And I suppose that your technical team is well aware of this fact - at least since Feb 2010.

But of course, these are not the important figures. It was rightly stated that the number of page views and the number of unique visitors are quite more meaningful. And I don't doubt these numbers. But shouldn't we try to get every number on the main page right?

[bezelbub]

Sorry, what was the question again?

[Jim Robinson]

Who cares, sheesh. How many active accounts have signed up for your pissant blog? Maybe you should spend more time improving it.

[humblegunner]

If I recall correctly you work at the DPS in Bumwad, Indiana.

What do YOU know about anything?

[Jim Robinson]

I’m sorry, what was the question again?

Please submit all complaints to our friendly complaint department: http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/logoff

[Jim Robinson]

Thank you for your concern.

I can tell that you are really concerned with FR’s well being:

bezelbub
Account # 290650
Signup 2007-12-02
Messages 1 article, 198 replies
Status Active?

[dayglored]

>> Posting a thread and running like hell is just a drive-by shooting and deserves only scorn.

> EXACTLY!! They aren't convinced of the propaganda they post.

To his credit, he eventually did show up and comment back. Unfortunately he seems to just want to make trouble, pushing a point that can best be described as the "Call of the Prey of the Viking Kitties".