Pete

And it seems to confirm that IanC is correct.

Jerry

128 threads today, 27% with the BS: label
155 threads then, 17% with the BS: label.

I should have checked more dates, I know, but I have other things to do as well.

Wolfgang

Mudcat traffic is definately going down, whilst BS is going up.

Maybe we've just found all the lyrics worth finding, concluded as to the best guitar/fiddle/whatever, answered all the 'what does this word mean' lyric queries...

Who knows...

Pete

Rich

A spot-check carried out on a single day isn't in itself too reliable. And counting the BS/ non BS threads on the basis of labels doesn't necessarily give the true picture either. You'd have to go all through the rest, really, and work out which were really BS. And then go through the BS and work out which were really music. (And then there are the ones which are both.)

I'm not suggesting anyone attempts a full statistical analysis. Unless there's a trainspotter somewhere who wants to hang up their anorak.

It seems likely enough to me that Pete Hayes is correct and that simple lyric searches may be down, for various reasons. That would include the probable fact that many people are getting more knowledgeable about using search facilities of one sort or another.

That would include the existence on the Mudcat of an amazing archive of discussions and information, available at the click of a button. You don't need to start a new thread every time you want to find out stuff - and unless the old threads get refreshed in the process, noone is going to know they've been used once again.

The really interesting musical threads, I have always felt, are the ones looking into the history and the meaning of songs, and the unwritten stories about musicians and so forth. Especially the ones with first person stories to add. These have have never been too thick on the ground, and we shouldn't expect that they would be. Diamonds in the dust.

I hope it's not gone for good - that was a really useful site. Japenses erotic websites I can do without.

~S~

Is there somewhere that the number of website hits are recorded for the forum, and then separately for the DT?

IMO, the DT is the main value of the website to the music community. As a library professional who often does on-line lyric searches as a hobby, I would argue one would have to analyze the current/past traffic patterns of the DT to see if the website's value is static or fluctuating.

Speaking only for myself, the DT's value has declined considerably since the time it first was put on-line. There is now some excellent competition where there once was none. Mmany excellent lyric sites have come on-line in the years since DT was first put on the site and made available on CD.

The reasons as I see it for DT's declining value doesn't really have much to do with BS and # of threads, or use of the forum at all, really. Rather, the declining value musicially for this (the Mudcat) website is due to several factors. 1) the search engine here is pretty hit and miss. 2) the DT has wildly variable accuracy rates, and there isn't regular maintenance/updates done to correct the problems. 3) it appears that the lyric additions/corrections posted to the forum aren't making it into the database with any regularity, and so many contributors are becoming frustrated and no longer bothering to contribute. And finally, the competition to DT/Mudcat seems, in several instances, to be a better product overall than DT (ie Contemplator, the Max Hunter collection, the Ballad Tree, etc), even though some individual users will prefer one site over another for a variety of reasons (but I would guess, mostly over the search engine issue).

I think for those of us with serious music/lyric interests, the DT has lost value over time. Whether that actually has translated to less traffic and use of the Mudcat/DT, I have no way of knowing. Max can figure it out one way or another if he chooses to take the time to sort it out, though. But being young and single, he may have some competing priorities with the website these days!

at that point in time, the 17th of October was also not over. Any moment in time shows roughly the last 24 hours.

Another count (I couldn't do it on October for the porn problem), also just a single shot right now:

The 28 % BS threads have an average number of 39 posts, whereas the 78% other threads have an average of 20 posts which makes roughly 43% of all posts posted in BS threads at this time.

No, I didn't go down to the single posts, but my guess is that much more BS-posts come up in music threads than music posts in BS-threads. And I am not always contented with the labeling, e.g. 'Radio na Gaeltachta' as a BS-thread is not what I consider BS, but it would be hard to agree every time.

Wolfgang

That reminds me, I need to buy some full sour kosher dills...damn these cravings!

Rich

http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__message_id=700000

You will also see the date the message was posted. To see the exact time the message was posted, there is one more step: click the subject heading. This reveals that message number 700000 was posted at 28-Apr-02 - 05:42 PM.

Checking at intervals of 20000 messages, I saw that message 680000 was posted at 31-Mar-02 - 06:33 AM, and so on. I went back as far as message 440000, at 13-Apr-01 - 04:45 PM. I then put all this information into a spreadsheet. Adding some formulas, you can calculate the average number of messages per day for each interval of 20000 messages.

Here are my results.

Message  Date        Time      (*)
  ------  ---------   --------  ---
  700000  28-Apr-02 - 05:42 PM  n/a
  680000  31-Mar-02 - 06:33 AM  703
  660000  28-Feb-02 - 12:53 PM  651
  640000  01-Feb-02 - 09:31 AM  737
  620000  02-Jan-02 - 03:14 PM  672
  600000  29-Nov-01 - 01:33 AM  579
  580000  25-Oct-01 - 09:36 PM  585
  560000  27-Sep-01 - 01:31 PM  706
  540000  01-Sep-01 - 11:41 PM  782
  520000  02-Aug-01 - 06:21 PM  662
  500000  06-Jul-01 - 02:38 PM  737
  480000  09-Jun-01 - 10:15 PM  750
  460000  10-May-01 - 06:15 PM  663
  440000  13-Apr-01 - 04:45 PM  739

(*) Average messages per day for the period beginning on that date.

I leave you to your own interpretation, but I'm impressed by how consistent the numbers have been over the past year. Subjective impressions can be deceiving.

~S~

Good thinking!

Regards

I've gone further back and 2000 seems a bit slower overall. If we go back to 1999, we seem to drop to about 250 posts per period and about an average of 100 posts per period in 1998.

Jon

:>)

A