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?

[don-o]

Repair tag line

[mnehring]

It looks like a LOT of assumptions are being made in this article, such as assuming member number systems have been consistantly used the same way, assuming consistant rate of failed sign up, assuming a rate of failed sign ups as the basis, and so on.. Sounds like someone with too much time on their hands and a weird obsession.

[RoseyT]

I thought the same thing.

[Jim Robinson]

And that’s good enough for me. Good enough for me... and Bobby McGee.

[mnehring]

The headline says WHO reads FR? But the verbage doesn’t address thequestion of WHO, in any sense whatsoever — it only pokes around the edges of HOW MANY may read FR. Kinda worthless news if you ask me.

At that, it doesn't even address HOW MANY read, it only tries to figure out member registration. How many read articles here that never register (such as via Google on a topic?)

[cripplecreek]

I was a FR reader long before I joined.

[Fiddlstix]

Somebody pee’d in your cornflakes this morning, huh?

[Jim Robinson]

From the coal mines of Kentucky to the California sun,
Bobby shared the secrets of my soul.
Stood right there beside me, Lord, through every thing I done,
And every night she kept me from the cold.

[mnehring]

Help me please. The chart indicates 190,000 working accounts in 1998 but 'The 100,000th Freeper' registers on Feb 23, 2003.

LOL, I just noticed, "'The 100,000th Freeper" is just a member name, not a number. Who knows what sign up number they had. I can go create an account now titled the "Billionth Freeper" and it no way means we have a billion freepers.

[Allegra]

Hey, guess what?

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

I didn't want to post a vanity about it, so I figured I'd put it in one of those threads where anything goes.

Oh, and a moose just bit my sister. Do you like cheese?

I tripped over the light fantastic and knocked the lights out.

[don-o]

Hello? Is this thing on?

[Jim Robinson]

I’ll bet your one of those guys who’d complain if he was hanged with a NEW rope.

[Politicalmom]

We’re using the “hockey stick” method of calculation. :p

[Flamenco Lady]

I too was a reader here for years before I finally signed up. In my immediate family there are 5 who read FR but I am the only one who has signed up on FR. Many of my extended family and many friends are also frequent readers of FR and I don’t think any of them are signed up either. I think the number of people regularly reading FR far exceeds the number signed up on the website.

[mnehring]

Well? What say you?

[Fiddlstix]

Oh, and a moose just bit my sister. Do you like cheese?

I didn't do it...I tell ya
I was on the other side of town
&
I didn't bite anybodies sister either.....
It's all a dirty rumor.....
It's...It's...Moose Abuse...I tell ya

[Uncle Miltie]

Or that Jim Thompson fellow, or whoever.

[GreenAccord]

Jim, I think I've read where a blogger said you had sort of endorsed what around here is commonly called blogpimping by stating (paraphrasing) that you weren't against it, and that you weren't going to stop it.

This kind of goofiness that pimpers (sic) bring - the posting of (usually) excerpts (although not in this case), and the vanishing that occurs to the poster afterward, that seems to draw ire.

I realize there's not a lot you can do about it, but what is your opinion of bloggers (with recent sign up dates) posting and running? Does blogpimping bother like it does some of us?

[Jim Robinson]

Blog pimping is not my highest priority. Not my job to worry about it. That’s why we have blog overlords.

[don-o]

There is SO much more to get “irate” about. I frankly do not get this obsession some have with blog “pimps.”

But I guess everyone needs a hobby