Favourites
Most popular topics | Flirtbox Suggestionsopen/close
- Who has seen my profile?... (30)
- IRC chat room... (25)
- A forum for Kent please?... (19)
- Name and Shame... (19)
- Do you need another forum... (17)
- Pesky kids!... (17)
- Ditch the ticker!... (16)
- Which colour scheme do yo... (16)
- Forum suggestions........ (14)
- Old Random Profiles... (13)
- % of messages responded t... (11)
- Forum ALBA / Scottish For... (11)
- Question for Toby... (11)
- IRC NETWORK... (11)
- Status of sent messages... (10)
- Profile idea?... (10)
- What I'm looking for... (9)
- Success Stories....... (9)
- email notification... (9)
- Not sure where to put thi... (9)
- Outbox... (8)
- Religion - Should have th... (8)
- Messaging and blocking co... (8)
- Adverts forum?... (7)
- What about...... (7)
Latest topics | Flirtbox Suggestionsopen/close
- ANYONE MONITORING THIS SI...
- How to improve the forums...
- Proflile Pictures...
- Please, please, please?...
- The guest books!...
- Mentoring...
- Closing duplicate threads...
- Three improvements needed...
- Loging Out...
- Replacement MoDS!...
- need any admins for the c...
- improvements...
- can we have the delete bu...
- Links to the last posts o...
- Not sure where to put thi...
- Forum Layout...
- What's the most important...
- Chat room gone?...
- No Photo=No Chat...
- Previously Banned Members...
- Simple Minds...
- add to the sports option...
- Just the one suggestion r...
- Youtube...
- new site design..DREADFUL...
Home >> Flirtbox Suggestions >> % of messages responded too
27.07.2006, 21:50 quote
I have an idea: How about adding a label next to each person's profile that says what % of the messages they receive, they actually respond to?
It won't be the world's best statistic, but it will really help people identify who they shouldn't bother sending messages to.
Speaking for myself, I'll disappear off here pretty quickly, if the response rate remains low. And I am sure I am not the only one.
27.07.2006, 21:53 quote
That'd be a pretty rubbish and misleading statistic - a lot of people won't reply to a lot of their emails, maybe because they receive them in such quantity, or because they're being spammed, scammed etc.
27.07.2006, 21:56 quote
| swissrebel wrote: |
| That'd be a pretty rubbish and misleading statistic - a lot of people won't reply to a lot of their emails, maybe because they receive them in such quantity, or because they're being spammed, scammed etc. |
Dead right.
Which is why we need to figure out a better one. You have any good ideas?
Maybe could mark people as simply as below average responders and above average responders. That way, on average, span won't make a difference.
27.07.2006, 21:58 quote
| emcsquared wrote: | ||
Dead right. Which is why we need to figure out a better one. You have any good ideas? Maybe could mark people as simply as below average responders and above average responders. That way, on average, span won't make a difference. |
I've found the best "stat" as it were, was their "last logged on" time. That tells you if they're active. If they don't reply to your message, they probably just don't want to, or don't have time to chat!
The more statistics we make available, the more misleading it can be for people. Toby's (in my opinion) already made a mistake of introducing the post count system, but he does have his reasons. This one doesn't have merit.
27.07.2006, 22:04 quote
| swissrebel wrote: | ||||
I've found the best "stat" as it were, was their "last logged on" time. That tells you if they're active. If they don't reply to your message, they probably just don't want to, or don't have time to chat!
The more statistics we make available, the more misleading it can be for people. Toby's (in my opinion) already made a mistake of introducing the post count system, but he does have his reasons. This one doesn't have merit. |
Yeah that's possible.
I think it is much more likely though that there are people registered here that have never (and will never) respond to anything. In doing so, they waste a lot of a person's time.
I think it is in the best interests of this sort of site, to make it clear what sort of feedback people should expect.
Otherwise the people will bore, the site will lose frequent customers, page views will go down, and the advertising revenues (or prospective ones) will drop.
Simple really. But maybe you don't see it this way.
You don't seem to think that an attempt at realistic feedback is commercially beneficial, and that it doesn't make the experience better?
27.07.2006, 22:16 quote
| emcsquared wrote: |
| Yeah that's possible.
I think it is much more likely though that there are people registered here that have never (and will never) respond to anything. In doing so, they waste a lot of a person's time. I think it is in the best interests of this sort of site, to make it clear what sort of feedback people should expect. Otherwise the people will bore, the site will lose frequent customers, page views will go down, and the advertising revenues (or prospective ones) will drop. Simple really. But maybe you don't see it this way. You don't seem to think that an attempt at realistic feedback is commercially beneficial, and that it doesn't make the experience better? |
The people who have never/will never respond. These people have every right to register and not reply until they find someone who interests them. Inactive profiles show their last login date, so you can ignore those.
Also. Commercially beneficial? This isn't a business, you're not charged to use this service. Even if this was a business, Toby wouldn't have the urge to produce lots of meaningless statistics. I also didn't say it wasn't commercially beneficial. Didn't use commercial at all
You want people to reply to your messages, you can't make this happen. You want to know who replies to all their messages and who only replies to some? How is that information beneficial? That person who doesn't reply to their messages might be waiting for someone exactly like you. And due to you seeing that statistic, you decide not to message them!
Seeing my point yet?
27.07.2006, 22:26 quote
| swissrebel wrote: |
|
The people who have never/will never respond. These people have every right to register and not reply until they find someone who interests them. Inactive profiles show their last login date, so you can ignore those. Also. Commercially beneficial? This isn't a business, you're not charged to use this service. Even if this was a business, Toby wouldn't have the urge to produce lots of meaningless statistics. I also didn't say it wasn't commercially beneficial. Didn't use commercial at all You want people to reply to your messages, you can't make this happen. You want to know who replies to all their messages and who only replies to some? How is that information beneficial? That person who doesn't reply to their messages might be waiting for someone exactly like you. And due to you seeing that statistic, you decide not to message them! Seeing my point yet? |
You make good points!
Firstly, an inactive account is obviously not the same as a non-responder.
Of course people can register, and respond only when they feel like it. Showing how often they respond doesn't change that. If they know they are obvious non-participants, and will be shown up as such by being marked, this would encourage more participation IF THEY SO CHOSE, not so? This would make the place livelier (a good thing I hope).
And as for commercial interests: Sure this isn't a business. But we all know that ideas with business savy go further than ideas without it. I don't think that needs much explanation.
One point you make that has logical potential
is that you might not message a non-responder, when in fact they could have been your dream date. Well non-responders would be encouraged to message you in the first place under this system, or they may find themselves getting less messages. Again this will not prevent you from making contact with anybody.
You might even find that you prefer to message people with low response rates, because their personalities are more in line with yours!
Btw, I am not posting this because I am frustrated and don't get replies! To the contrary my dear Watson. I just think it will be an improvement, and keep people interested.
27.07.2006, 22:33 quote
| emcsquared wrote: |
|
You make good points! Firstly, an inactive account is obviously not the same as a non-responder. Of course people can register, and respond only when they feel like it. Showing how often they respond doesn't change that. If they know they are obvious non-participants, and will be shown up as such by being marked, this would encourage more participation IF THEY SO CHOSE, not so? This would make the place livelier (a good thing I hope). And as for commercial interests: Sure this isn't a business. But we all know that ideas with business savy go further than ideas without it. I don't think that needs much explanation. One point you make that has logical potential is that you might not message a non-responder, when in fact they could have been your dream date. Well non-responders would be encouraged to message you in the first place under this system, or they may find themselves getting less messages. Again this will not prevent you from making contact with anybody.
You might even find that you prefer to message people with low response rates, because their personalities are more in line with yours! Btw, I am not posting this because I am frustrated and don't get replies! To the contrary my dear Watson. I just think it will be an improvement, and keep people interested. |
Your suggestion now is to put in a system that "flags" non or low-responders, to encourage them to message more?
What if they're shy? Labelling them isn't particularly helpful, probably detrimental in fact.
The place is particularly lively, since the forums have been introduced, only a few months ago, Toby was saying how there were 140,000 members (from a thread from someone saying he should merge sites to increase traffic to the site) Since then, over 20,000 people have joined the site. So we've got plenty of people, they're just messaging at their own pace.
In an attempt to encourage people to post, Toby's put the "Top messaging statistics" so that you can see who "posts the most" messages. This is good, because it gives people something to show their activity, whilst not basically flagging the quieter users.
I'm gonna dash your whole commercial angle though, Toby's said from the start this isn't a business, he'd much prefer it to remain just a solid community. There's the odd banner advertising, but that's it. The idea isn't to make this place more active (you'll find it already is quite busy, with frequent server drops) it's to help people meet other people. It's worryingly noble of him.
27.07.2006, 22:53 quote
| swissrebel wrote: |
|
Your suggestion now is to put in a system that "flags" non or low-responders, to encourage them to message more? What if they're shy? Labelling them isn't particularly helpful, probably detrimental in fact. The place is particularly lively, since the forums have been introduced, only a few months ago, Toby was saying how there were 140,000 members (from a thread from someone saying he should merge sites to increase traffic to the site) Since then, over 20,000 people have joined the site. So we've got plenty of people, they're just messaging at their own pace. In an attempt to encourage people to post, Toby's put the "Top messaging statistics" so that you can see who "posts the most" messages. This is good, because it gives people something to show their activity, whilst not basically flagging the quieter users. I'm gonna dash your whole commercial angle though, Toby's said from the start this isn't a business, he'd much prefer it to remain just a solid community. There's the odd banner advertising, but that's it. The idea isn't to make this place more active (you'll find it already is quite busy, with frequent server drops) it's to help people meet other people. It's worryingly noble of him. |
I don't personally see how showing a response rate relative to the average response rate will be detrimental for shy people. Elaborate your thoughts here, if you will?
The forums seem pretty lively, but I'm not talking about them. What % of people on the site actually use the forums? Pretty small I have no doubt. I am talking about giving people, who are looking to meet and chat, one to one, more information to decide who they should message. If they prefer low responders then so be it. If they don't look at the response rate (people like you) then that's peachy too. If they would like it high (people like me) then all's well. You could even offer people the choice to hide their own response rates!
Let me get this straight- you say that the server crashes because there are so many people here, but that this place doesn't have a commercial angle? Hmmm, that doesn't work. Money buys proper servers, bandwidth etc. Look at yahoo!. It has a great community, makes money, and doesn't charge users. Other points aside, you aren't easily going to argue that commercially viable ideas are worse than uncommercial ideas.
Your idea about "top messaging statistics" might work too, but that would highlight people who send out tons of messages.
Anyhow good night. Nice chatting. I have to get up nice and early tomorrow to go fuel the worlds capitalism!
27.07.2006, 23:32 quote
| emcsquared wrote: |
| I don't personally see how showing a response rate relative to the average response rate will be detrimental for shy people. Elaborate your thoughts here, if you will?
The forums seem pretty lively, but I'm not talking about them. What % of people on the site actually use the forums? Pretty small I have no doubt. I am talking about giving people, who are looking to meet and chat, one to one, more information to decide who they should message. If they prefer low responders then so be it. If they don't look at the response rate (people like you) then that's peachy too. If they would like it high (people like me) then all's well. You could even offer people the choice to hide their own response rates! |
Flagging shy people as "non responsive" or "low-responsive" is labelling them. That's detrimental, however you look at it. It's fine to let everyone know that X poster and poster Y send so many hundreds of messages. Why not? They're probably spamming anyway. But the people who don't send many messages shouldn't be marked because of this. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wouldn't want to be marked as "non-responsive". So then you suggest they should be allowed to hide their response rates? Surely then, people would choose this option - why would anyone (besides the top 50 messagers) would someone want to show how many messages they reply to? It's information that isn't important, and therefore - people won't want to give it to you.
| emcsquared wrote: |
|
Let me get this straight- you say that the server crashes because there are so many people here, but that this place doesn't have a commercial angle? Hmmm, that doesn't work. Money buys proper servers, bandwidth etc. Look at yahoo!. It has a great community, makes money, and doesn't charge users. Other points aside, you aren't easily going to argue that commercially viable ideas are worse than uncommercial ideas. |
No, this place has server crashes because it has so many people, and isn't a commercial venture - therefore doesn't have the funding to buy all that expensive equipment. I think you'll find it does work. Yeah, he doesn't charge - but Yahoo's communities aren't funded by their advertising or anything, Yahoo makes all it's money from being a major company with lots of various projects funding lots of less-profitable projects that simply give them a user-base. Flirtbox isn't a major corportation, so has no "outside funding" like Yahoo. Nor does it have shareholders to appease.
I don't know why you keep bringing up the commercial ideas, even if this system was introduced, as you say, to mark people who don't post. It's not going to draw more users to the site. People don't visit the site because of it's features - even though it has plenty of those. It has a massive members database, which is free. This is the lure to people.
Unfortunately, introducing large numbers of statistics that simply alienate some users because they don't send out hundreds of "hi" messages (which brings the average RIGHT up) will only reduce the number of people actively participating in the site. To send just one message a day, every day, isn't even close to the average. So "comparing to the average" wouldn't work. Even if you tag just the people who don't message every day - what about all those people who only come on at the weekend?
Nah, i'm sorry. I stand by the need to keep statistics as far away from the system as possible. It's a dating website, the statistics won't help you. Stick with the "last logged in" date. If they don't reply to your message, deal with the rejection and move on
| emcsquared wrote: |
|
Your idea about "top messaging statistics" might work too, but that would highlight people who send out tons of messages. |
It's not an idea, I've just said - This system is in place on the site already. It's useless. It just shows who spams the most.
28.07.2006, 11:47 quote
stupid idea in my opinion. i have had over 1000 messages but only replied to 300 as most of the messages i get are from people of the same love or people that have no picture. does that make me a person not worth bothering with?
05.08.2006, 15:00 quote
If you're desperate for this feature, i'd be happy to go along with it - as long as it has the ability to be switched off.
That way, if you don't want some nosey bugger looking at how many messages you reply to, you don't have to endure it.
Saying that, people reply to my messages. So I guess i'm biased.
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum