Site traffic

B

birch

Valued Senior Member
Is one of unspoken reasons for banning or weeding out members is to cut down on site traffic?

is bandwith a consideration?

is the agenda for more or less traffic?
 
Wrong.!!!

Wrong.!!!

Wrong.!!!

This is a science forum wit an agenda of quality posts an if youv'e read the rules you woud know that crackedpottery is not allowed.!!!
 
James R said:
No. Ideally, we'd like more site traffic, but with fewer spammers and low-quality posters.
Click to expand...

This site attracts very interesting (sometimes off the beaten track) people that I've not seen on other forums. Though you may think they are low-quality posters but they serve a purpose as a counterpoint for discussion. It gives a reason to highlight that actual knowledge. what is there to discuss if the other already knows what you know and agrees with you?

also, looking over the ban list and those who are banned besides the spammers, it seems the moderators ban people very easily. I think many of them shouldn't have been banned at all, even the ones I disagree with. Except for extreme cases of those who abjectly violate forum rules or human decency (pornography etc), I think it's counterproductive.

Maybe this site could try an experiment where you unbanned members and allowed more diverse points of view and see if it attracts more quality posters just by virtue of more controversy and reasons to post.
 
birch said:
This site attracts very interesting (sometimes off the beaten track) people that I've not seen on other forums. Though you may think they are low-quality posters but they serve a purpose as a counterpoint for discussion.
Click to expand...
I only mentioned low-quality posters. I didn't single any person or type of person out as a low-quality poster. They come in various types. Being off-beat doesn't automatically make somebody low quality.

also, looking over the ban list and those who are banned besides the spammers, it seems the moderators ban people very easily. I think many of them shouldn't have been banned at all, even the ones I disagree with. Except for extreme cases of those who abjectly violate forum rules or human decency (pornography etc), I think it's counterproductive.
Click to expand...
Moderators rarely directly ban anybody. We have a system of warnings, and people are banned only when they accumulate enough warning points in a short enough period of time. If a member accumulated points, then at some point they start receiving automated bans. Warnings are given to encourage posters to follow the site posting guidelines.

To be permanently banned from sciforums typically requires either (a) blatant and serious violation of our posting policies, or (b) a pattern of repeat offending, usually accompanied by failure of the poster to modify his or her behaviour despite repeated warnings. In other words, people who are banned typically exclude themselves from posting here. But even that usually takes some time.

Maybe this site could try an experiment where you unbanned members and allowed more diverse points of view and see if it attracts more quality posters just by virtue of more controversy and reasons to post.
Click to expand...
The people who get permanently banned here are usually incorrigible. Some are even drawn back like moths to the flame and create sock puppets just to try to continue the behaviour that got them perma-banned in the first place.

In several cases, we have allowed people who have been banned to return and attempt to make a fresh start. Such experiments have not usually worked out well, because the posters involved have reverted to type soon after returning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top