How many users is the "right" size for FerrariChat.com?

Noony

very close, you have a PM

 

you're asking a purely theoretical question. beyond draconian measures you seem (rationally) unwilling to take, the community will largely decide how big it wants to be. you don't really get to dictate the equilibrium point (barring extreme measures like "no money = no visit").

large boards require large management. huge boards require huge management. a big community of online folks isn't terribly different than a big community of IRL folks (a company, a club, etc.), except that everybody tends to be more civil IRL .

AVS Forum is my favorite example of a gigantic board that is run quite impressively. it's quite similar demographics to ferrarichat too (gender, age, incomes, passion, etc.). as i write this there are 2,284 members online there; at peak times, they have more people online simultaneously than fchat has total members. AVS has more users whose names start with the letter A (~4,600) than fchat has total members (~94,300 members at AVS).

big gigantic forums do it by designating moderators. check these sites out. i know you're not a big fan of moderation, but there's really no way around it if you expect and/or plan to grow. the worst thing that can happen is to grow without the infrastructure to support it - then you end up pissing off everybody as the community degrades. you seem to think you're approaching a pinch-point: either limit the growth via some measures (which will likely be viewed as extreme) or plan for it and embrace it!

it's possible there's some "other" way to deal with growth than what's been demonstrated empirically thus far, but i don't t consider that likely.

there's a lot of really good research on online community building. there's a prof at stanford (name escapes me) who's written up some neat stuff i remember reading a few years back (when i was in that biz).

this smells sub-optimal, dude.

as an online advertiser, i care about (i) whether the message about my business penetrates the consumer's brain and (ii) that the consumer clicks through.

in the relatively simplistic medium of online advertising, it's all about getting the message in front of the consumer's eyeballs - a lot. by capping the ad rate and admitting more advertisers you are, in theory, diluting the frequency with which i see a "Hill Engineering" banner (for example). if there are N impressions to be sold per time period Y and you have M advertisers that all run equally (another issue) then as an advertiser i can expect to get N/M impressions. the problem is that the higher the value of M the longer it takes for my banner to "come around again" for that user to see it multiple times.

just 'cuz you're adding users (and thus impressions) doesn't mean that the user visit time/durations are changing - in fact they're probably decreasing on average as you get more "casual" users. so if my odds of hitting a user are only 1 in M (and M is increasing) and impressions per user per visit are decreasing, then the odds of my banner being in front of Mr. Doody multiple times in a time period are decreasing. this isn't really helping me to drill anything into Mr. Doody's brain, and he's less likely to click through to my site.

finally, your statement suggests that you're ignoring the free market system and probably limiting your revenues, which are presumably contra-indicated. there's no way this site is as valuable to FX Performance of Technik1 (presumably) because of their geographic foci; as compared to Cavallino Motors or Car Store of Glenside, where one or two sales per year from the site might pay for the advertising costs (i have NO clue what you charge). you should consider the sort of stuff that sophisticated ad sellers have done to tier their offerings (cnn.com, gamespot.com, etc. etc.).

nobody said that what is good for the consumer is also good for the advertiser, cf. furthermore, the age of the internet means we can learn about most of this stuff without advertisements - it's an iffy argument IMO.

be careful with this line of reasoning. i'm not saying it's wrong, but bear in mind that boatloads of advertising-supported internet concerns failed because of thought processes just like this one.

not sure that's true. i've seen it at barnes & noble, and i think at borders as well. though i haven't looked terribly recently.

doody.

 

I think you should limit size and keep the quality of the site high by charging money.

 

Rob -- (Although I know they're probably well-related,) Isn't the more interesting statistic posts/day rather than total users? It has become a more overwhelming the last year or so, and even though I usually only read the General and Technical sections, I've started skipping some posts in the General section just by how the title hits me.

IMO this was/is one of the fundamental problems with FList -- the more success it had, the bigger the email bombardment got -- and you couldn't/can't avoid the flame wars.

What we need most now is good discipline by the original thread posters to have clear, descriptive thread titles (and the discipline by others to not hijack/subject wander) so that the user/reader can select what's most appropriate for them -- JMO.

 

F-Chat Stats
http://www.web-stat.com/stats.shtml?ferrarichat

 

Not yet, Mark...

 

>(barring extreme measures like "no money = no visit").

I don't believe Rob suggested that. What might be worth considering is no money = no posting. I'll participate in such a poll.

 

I think Doody is right on the mark.

With all due respect to many of those posting feedback here, I have seen a lot of suggestions that will severely hurt, rather than help. It's easy to say "XYZ will solve it", but I have never, ever seen a pay community forum work. I've seen donations based ones work, and I've seen "pay for better features" ones work, but never a pay-only site. not for content anyway. I don't see why it would work here. And "because i think it would" does not counter all the empirical evidence and failed "we'll charge for content" web based companies out there. It's been tried, and it didn't work.

The reaction we expect is not always the one we get, and I think charging for access would be a big downer. I am a member of the AV Science Forum too - they are a shining example of how to manage a BIG forum, keep it on topic, and minimize stupidity. You HAVE to get more moderators, and split the site up as it grows - no other option.

I think conditioning users to change their post habits won't work - it has to be done through more strict moderation. I think if you want to lower the amount of postings, you need to split the site into more forums. I personally have zero interest in anything older than a 355, so posts about 308/328/348 are of no consequence. Maybe splitting "General chat" into different years or models would help out. Also, some more strict moderation would help. I can't count how much duplicate posting I see (i.e. "hey check out this funny graphic!" that gets posted for the 84 billionth time). Keeping people more on track would help too - and pruning off-topic would help. Lots of folks complained about G. Green before he was finally axed.

Just some suggestions.

 

i didn't explain myself well. you're talking here about "supply and demand" simply from the point of advertisers. what i was suggesting is that given how the advertising works here, the more advertisers there are, the less valuable the advertising is to them. you should be lowering your CPM as you add advertisers because each advertiser will be getting less exposure per each specific customer (that whole bit about average ad views per user per time period and visits getting shorter, etc. etc.). this is an arguable point depending upon how you believe "advertisers extract value from banner ads" but, realistically speaking, i think it's accurate.

as to controls, it may be the case that you have to pay someone if you don't want to go the volunteer-ish moderator route. that's certainly one route to go. i assume the AVS moderators get deals on AVS products or something like that (i've asked for confirmation on this issue), though it's less clear what you could offer aside from cash.

my two lira.

doody.

 

Concur. Discipline would help in a few areas, regardless of number of members.

- Fill something in the profiles. Will eliminate the "what kind of car do you have, where do you live, what year is your car, etc. threads." I know some want their privacy, but something would be nice. If you will post it in a reply, put it in the profile. Search member list to find out the above before posting a thread.

- Search before you post. The last few months there have been a lot of threads that were addressed 1 month ago, 6 months ago, a year ago, etc. I don't see a lot of new stuff anymore, or I miss it because it moves off the front page in a day. Or there are four threads on the same subject, same day. I have seen a few older members commenting, "Do a search on this topic and you will find a lot of information". Add new information to the same thread. Search the rest of the web also for off topic questions.

- - Example. When August rolls around and we are all trying to get the best info on Monterey, it will be great if there is a 200 reply post on the Historics with every detail, secret parking spot, lesson learned, favorite restaraunt, hotels, etc. I think there are five different threads since I started one on Jan 6th.

- Keep Tech in Tech. Tubi exhaust, wheels, tires, problems, door doesn't open, funny noise, xxx doesn't work, car smokes, etc. are going to get better responses in Tech. And search first, please. Then you can add to the same thread.

- Now shoot me.
- - 1). It wasn't all that bad when "you know who" threw out the "Off Topic" sirens every now and then. 2). Start charging to play. Rob, you should recoup your costs and make a profit.

Sorry, Rob, I do not have an idea on "enforcing / directing / complying" any of the above (nor do I want to try). But I think you could have 10K members or 10 members and the basics are the same. I would certainly look for as many members as possible.

 

Agreed. I think(cautiously) that having to pay a small fee to post would severely limit trolls or undesireables. People could still read any thread they wanted but would not be able to post until they pay the fee.

By doing that wouldn't that filter the serious from the not so serious? I know that if I found a pay site(where I could still view posts) that was interesting I would eventually be happy to pay a fee to enable posting by me.
Is this that crazy of an idea? Maybe people could even have a free 30 day "trial" membership before the fee kicks in...

 

Put a Lamborghini label on it and Allan will
JK

Moderators and people have to fill out profiles...anonymous begets trolls. I haven't been here long, but I have met a ton of great people. No car, no problem, no clue, buh-bye

 

91TR/Steve and Rob,

I agree with what you say completely in your posts above. I like this forum, though I don't post as much as others, when I do, I do so with the intention to help. There are a lot of us who are built this way. Problem is some are not.

One of the issues that is being addressed here is how to keep the noise down, so that the noise is not louder than the music.

It's a tough call.

I hate to make enemies here but money (nominal fee to be on the forum) does act as a filter (not perfect but maybe OK) to ,in my opinion, add quality by reducing the noise.

Regardless of what is decided here I like it here and am here to stay (so long as Rob lets me).

Regards,

Drew Altemara

 

Rob,
One way to please your sponsers and potentially keep the noisey posts down is to charge a fee for posts for non Ferrari owners with execptions for Mecanics that add value versus take cheap shots at F Cars. I haven't noticed any such shots but anyway. I have been a member for a few years since I bought my first Ferrari (June 2001). Some how my earlier registration information didn't get carried over but anyway I think Ferrari owners get and contribute allot to this board but if you start charging a fee to them then the posts will probably suffer and those are the posts that I am most interested in seeing and I bet that your Sponsers would agree since we are the ones buying their products.

 

I 'skated' through the posts. At 1000 users a month, I would charge a $10 one-time fee. It may have been mentioned. That should keep you happy. Nice change for a side job.

Troll control: Designate one or two people to do 'Troll Patrol' an three hours a week.

 

I think limiting the amount of users to quality users is important. But establishing what a quality user is could be an issue.

I tend to read a lot of the posts and learn about the marque and hearing about these stories that these owners have are really interesting. So I think limiting the board to owners will eliminate a lot of fans that enjoy the cars and want to learn more about them. In the past few months I've learned more about Ferraris and other cars than I have in the past few years.

 

quality over quantity

 

I do not own a Ferrari, but I can say that since my first post almost 2 years ago I have learned a great deal. I owe the knowledge to all of the(ok, not all) nice people on this site. Furthermore, all of my posts have been respectful and polite. I always have had the best intentions.

I am a senior in college, so an F-car in my life is not really feasible. Just give me 5-7 years and I will most likely be close to one.

The one thing I don't understand is why you are classifying non-owners(except mechanics) as people who needlessly taint the atmosphere of Fchat. That sounds pretty presumptuous to me. If I am correct Mr. Ausbrooks is neither an owner nor a mechanic. Along with other valuable posters.


I have no problem paying a fee to post here, but I believe the fee should be paid by everyone including us pesky wannabes *sigh*

 

Rob-

Already the number of posts are becoming unmanageable.

Maybe the forum should be limited to Ferrari owners; I don't know??

We have a lot of people taking up bandwidth, who are mere 'kids' (to those of you, please don't take offense), but apparently they are enthusiasts.

Also. there are a number of 'Trolls' that diminish the experience of 'Chat'.

What it boils down to is.......some restrictions need to be applied.

How you control it, I don't know. As I know nothin' bout' puters!

At any rate Rob; you're doing a great job.

 

I'll admit I haven't been around the net that much (with regards to message boards), but I have never seen an online forum bigger than www.gamefaqs.com, of which I am a member. It's a forum for discussing computer/console gaming, but like Ferrarichat they also have off-topic boards. At peak usage times, they have close to 6000 members online at once. They have over 500,000 registered usernames (closer to 600k by now, I believe), and most of those are unique. Here's a little info on how they do business:

1. Moderators. LOTS of moderators. Mods are chosen once or twice a year by the administrator (as far as I know) using some unknown process. Presumably, active, friendly people become mods.

2. Karma. Every account has a Karma value and an account level. When a new user signs up, s/he starts at 0 karma and level 15. At that level, number of posts per day are restricted. Say, 10 posts a day for a new user. Also, some boards cannot be accessed by low Karma users (basically, it's vets only) You gain Karma by logging in every day and also by not getting moderations. At 15 Karma (I can't remember exactly), you reach level 20, where the number of posts you can make per day goes up. And so on, and soforth. At level 30, you now have unlimited posts. Trolls and such will never get past the first level., since you lose Karma for violations.

3. Meta-Mod. This is a program built into the software that allows regular users to notify a moderator of a TOS (Terms of Service) violation. Basically, it flags the post (or topic) for review by a moderator. If our friend Mr. Green shows up in Off Topic again and MarkPDX is asleep at the wheel (j/k), He'll get notified quickly. Bugging the mods by using meta-mod isn't a good idea, and will result in a Karma loss.

4. Restricted Boards. Some boards cannot be accessed by new members, and some are invite only. Many boards have a Karma restriction, meaning that only veteran users can view/make topics.

Just thought maybe this could be useful, Rob. BTW, if you decide to charge for F-Chat, please make read-only accounts free!

 

Since you have things like "General" and "Off Topic" sections, it would be hard to limit this to just Ferrari owners. However, if the list gets too large, you may want to consider ONLY OWNERS be allowed in sections like "Technical"...........non-owners have NO reason to be here, except for the mechanics.

 

Rob I voted as large as it gets. Here is your chance to make some money. Sales, sales, sales. The more eyeballs you have looking at your site the more you can charge for advertizing, thus keeping the site free for the fellas. Being that this IS a men's social club, LOL, the target marketing audiance is a given. I would suggest looking into how you can get more ad revenue. Also it doesn't just have to be car stuff. The advertizers should be targeted towards men's interests. You can get ads from sports clothing makers, softdrinks, junkfood, beer, insurance co., etc. The more eyes you have the merrier. Rob, this site is awesome which is why it is growing so fast. Keep it free for the guys, but expand the advertizing. Okay I'm done.