5 -> 15

[Rarex]

Instead of "Users active in the past 5 minutes", change it too "Users active in the past 15 minutes".

 

 

 

:)

[Laikrob]

Why? There is no need to give a false image of activity, with the already high number of users.

[Ouchy]

I could not see what this would do to aid the forums? The only thing we could possible gain like Laikrob has already stated is an increased amount of active members at one time.

[____]

I sometimes things it needs to be 2 or 3 minutes...

[Rainy_Day]

There's simply no point in doing it. With the activity of the forums, there is no need.

[Pan_Nx]

There's not much of a point besides it makes us look more active. Most fansites have it set at around 15 mins, where we only have it set as 5.

[Kill_Life]

And could you please provide a good reason why this should be implented?

[The Observer]

I don't think so. This would be quite annoying if you're sending someone a private message. It will make users think they are online, but are actually offline.

[InkofDeath]

Besides the above responses, has anyone thought people have the time set at 15 minutes so when people look at the numbers they see the board is far more active than 'said' board. Generally the majority of users who are put in deciding between two or more forums will want to use some form of proving one is better than the other. Message Boards need activity, it's their core. Number one reason to pick a forum over another is by checking the available activity at the bottom of the board.

 

 

 

If Tip.It wants to ignore this, and probably continue to lose about 100-200 users just finding out about RSC and Tip.It from RuneScape, it's fine, but who is it hurting more? To be honest 'A false imagery of activity' compared to increasing activity is a very low cost, but hey whatever mentality is ticking away that is keeping these mindless 'unwritten internet ethics' from improving the forums at all, is not my full concern, merely just to point this out.

 

 

 

False imagery of activity? Yes, let's not change it to show more users, and then let the users who only look at the numbers (and not the times) go for the other forums. Sure, perhaps we may not want those who aren't smart enough, or don't have the patience, or just aren't informed enough that the activity at the bottom of the board is even time based. That's probably it. New users, not used to forums, they aren't going to care whether or not the time is 15 minutes, or an hour, or two days. They see what they see, and make an impression from that.

 

 

 

5 Minutes? 15 Minutes? Makes a huge difference in the amount of users shown, which usually brings in more users because humans generally care more for quantity than quality, but for a small price to pay of being what exactly? Dishonest? Not really. If Tip.It really wanted to be truth full it would be per every 10 seconds, or less. But it's at 5 minutes. Thus it's still creating a false imagery of activity. Call this extreme, but using 'false imagery of activity' is also extreme. It's stupid, and irrelevant when you want to sustain activity on a board, which would generally be a priority amongst most message boards.

 

 

 

Perhaps, there's no immediate or useful effect of increasing the time, but as I explained above, the reactions from the action of increasing the time highly outweighs being plain out stubborn. Honestly, I don't know why people in this thread are failing to see the positive effects of this are, and this is what is making me actually post this reply. I'm hoping you guys can see this now, and what it would actually do.

 

 

 

'Aiding the forums,'? 'False Imagery of Activity,'? 'No point,'? Look past the mentality and doubt, and you'll see the benefits.

 

 

 

@Killer; I think it's easy to set it so that the 'Last Online' or 'Currently Online' can have a different time on it. So it's only 5 minutes, while the 'Users Active In The Past X Minutes' can be different.

[Kill_Life]

If you didn't create an account, you can't see the number of people who logged in the last 5 minutes.

 

So that can't be an arguement for them to create an account.

[____]

In total there are 113 users online :: 59 registered, 9 hidden and 45 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)

 

Most users ever online was 659 on 18`01`08 [5`02`31]

 

 

 

 

 

Riiiiight. And increasing the time limit is going to achieve what exactly? 5minutes is more than enough padding.

[Rarex]

Simply to increase the amount of "active users". Why not? It gives an image of a more active forum. What is there to loose? Nothing.

 

 

 

Tip.it is the 2nd biggest Runescape fansite. Changing to 15 minutes, I'm sure, would perhaps even increase the amount of "active users" by 100! Unregistered accounts (guests) CAN view the board stats (active users, guests, hiddens, ect ect). If they saw 196 active users online instead of 96, there are much much more chances of them making an account.

 

 

 

Again, why not? There is nothing to loose. No bandwidth to pay for.

[dsavi]

Hmm, how about we change it to something lower? Would give a more accurate idea of who is online, I often log in for less than 5 minutes. 2 or 3 minutes maybe?

 

I can't imagine why it would be changed otherwise. We have maybe 1 or 2k semi-active and active users together, we'll be fine.

 

 

 

Sure, we have nothing to lose. We don't happen to have anything to gain by doing that either.

[InkofDeath]

If you didn't create an account, you can't see the number of people who logged in the last 5 minutes.

 

So that can't be an arguement for them to create an account.

 

Perhaps that should be changed then, instead of just shrugging it off? I've given reasons why it would benefit the community, plus if that was done, it would be another reason to do the 15 minutes.

 

 

 

@dsavi; I already suggested that there's two timers; 1 for the 'users last online in the past X minutes'; and one for 'User Was Last Online @ X Days Ago'.

[x1992x]

now that we're on the topic of activity. may i ask why you can set to not show you're online. there no reason for that at all -.- if you're using the forums you should be shown as online ;)

[InkofDeath]

now that we're on the topic of activity. may i ask why you can set to not show you're online. there no reason for that at all -.- if you're using the forums you should be shown as online ;)

 

Privacy issues & concerns. Not everyone wants to be seen as online. Some people don't want to be disturbed by PM's. Not everyone wants to grab attention from users.

 

 

 

It's a good feature for those who want choice. It's like as stated a 'cosmetic' addition of the forums. Servers no real great importance, yet to a minority it's either very useful, or a great treasure to them. Just because it has no purpose to the majority, doesn't mean people won't be using it. And as seeing as it is used, yet no negative repercussion, it's one of those little things that make a difference on the forums.

[n_odie]

now that we're on the topic of activity. may i ask why you can set to not show you're online. there no reason for that at all -.- if you're using the forums you should be shown as online ;)

 

 

 

TBH, I hop on invisible and just read.... nice for everyone to not always know where you are!

[____]

perma-invisible ftw :thumbsup:

[Pan_Nx]

Would 10 be a bad compromise?

[tripsis]

Simply to increase the amount of "active users". Why not? It gives an image of a more active forum. What is there to loose? Nothing.

 

 

 

Tip.it is the 2nd biggest Runescape fansite. Changing to 15 minutes, I'm sure, would perhaps even increase the amount of "active users" by 100! Unregistered accounts (guests) CAN view the board stats (active users, guests, hiddens, ect ect). If they saw 196 active users online instead of 96, there are much much more chances of them making an account.

 

 

 

Again, why not? There is nothing to loose. No bandwidth to pay for.

 

And why do we have to live up to an "image?" We have no obligation to make ourselves look better or anything of the sort. We don't have to pretend to have more active users than we actually do (which would essentially be what we're doing if we changed it to 15 minutes). From what I understand, you want to increase it so we can get a larger number of active members, correct? And you want to do that because it will look better and encourage people to create an account. Well if that's the case, people will be joining our forum under false pretenses. There is absolutely no reason to mislead users to gain a few more members and/or make ourselves look better.

[InkofDeath]

And why do we have to live up to an "image?" We have no obligation to make ourselves look better or anything of the sort. We don't have to pretend to have more active users than we actually do (which would essentially be what we're doing if we changed it to 15 minutes). From what I understand, you want to increase it so we can get a larger number of active members, correct?

 

Nor do you have any obligation, or any need to pretend to anything of the opposite of those examples. IE; Tip.It has an/no obligation to make themselves look worse. Tip.It doesn't/shouldn't need to pretend it has less active users. Where does the line cross of being active? 15 minutes, you become inactive on the boards, but why? You were reading an interesting topic, or perhaps posting something, yet after 5 minutes only, you are taken off the list, even though you're clearly active, but not being recorded. Sure the 5 minutes would count as an 'actual number of activity', if you could record users not clicking, or interacting at all with the forums, except reading. But that's nearly impossible, and more or less impracticable. So where is this line that 5, or 10, or 15 minutes is showing unclear, or false activity? I'd give a bet 60% of users are taken off the 'Last Online', or 'Currently Online', at least 10-15 times per forum visit. Ridiculous, and I think the 5 minutes in this case, would be showing a false state of activity, for not recording those who are still active on the boards.

 

 

 

And you want to do that because it will look better and encourage people to create an account. Well if that's the case, people will be joining our forum under false pretenses.

 

It won't be under false pretenses if you look at what I typed above. Unless there's evidence that anyone who stops interacting with forum links for 5 minutes has clearly off-linked, or has closed their browser, or even just left the screen to sleep, then you can not say anything about false activity. Unless you can prove both authentic false, and true inactivity amongst users, then the only thing that is false is the current time for activity.

 

 

 

Am I wrong? Does it not take the average user longer than 5 minutes to read through the first post, and say 1/2 of the rest of the topic? I know it does for me. Does it not take users more then 5 minutes to create a post, or even a topic? Yes, unless you have over 200 words per minute, which clearly isn't the case. So, why exactly are people calling 15 minutes inaccurate, or a false presentation of activity? If anything, 5 minutes is far more false/incorrect/inaccurate than 15 minutes is. Why? Because we spend most of our time reading. Not clicking. We spend more time typing as well, then clicking. Yet, which one of these actually contribute to activity being recorded?

 

 

 

I'm speaking mainly about the majority of Off-Topic users, and about half of the General topics, and other forums probably a lot longer in terms of reading and replying as they are smaller, and have more detail, or content worth reading/posting about.

 

 

 

Heck, with this, I can easily say 20 minutes is a better presentation of activity. But because the mentality is already saying 15 is ridiculous/false representation, we're not going to get 20, even though it's clear that 20 is far better than 15.

 

 

 

Though I would say 30 minutes is extreme. There is no topic that the average user, on an average day, everyday, would spend 30 minutes on just reading or posting. The average time is probably between 10-15 minutes, each.

 

 

 

There is absolutely no reason to mislead users to gain a few more members and/or make ourselves look better.

 

You're not misleading.

 

You are making yourselves look better, but not by making yourselves look larger, but giving a better accurate description of forum activity. Which, isn't misleading users, now is it? It's the opposite.

[tripsis]

I disagree entirely. It is very, very, very rare that it takes me five minutes to read through a page in a thread or post a topic. And it never takes me more than 5 minutes to create a topic. If I am creating a long topic then I usually write it out on a writing application before posting it on Tip.it.. and I'm sure that most of our users don't create a topic that takes more than 5 minutes to write up on a daily basis (and if that's untrue, then I have no idea how it could possibly take 5 minutes).

 

 

 

I honestly don't even see why this is such a big issue... who cares what other people think about us? Who cares if they see that we have less active users than we really do (even though I disagree with that)? Although I disagree with your post entirely, skatedog111, this is such a trivial "issue" that I couldn't care less how it turns out. The only reason I can think of to want to increase the time period is to make ourselves look better. I get that impression from your post and from all the other posts that agree with you. We are not making ourselves look bad by having the limit be five.. and quite frankly, anyone who judges a fansite based on the number of current online users is just ridiculous.

 

 

 

I already have problems with PMing someone who I thought was online (because of the list), just to find out that they had gone inactive several minutes ago. But like I said, I couldn't care less what the number is. I disagree with changing it, but it's so trivial that it hardly matters, lol.

[InkofDeath]

I disagree entirely. It is very, very, very rare that it takes me five minutes to read through a page in a thread or post a topic. And it never takes me more than 5 minutes to create a topic. If I am creating a long topic then I usually write it out on a writing application before posting it on Tip.it.. and I'm sure that most of our users don't create a topic that takes more than 5 minutes to write up on a daily basis (and if that's untrue, then I have no idea how it could possibly take 5 minutes).

 

And I was only guessing when I was stating those numbers. Unless we find out how long the majority do take, as I was stating, it will always be speculated about. Even saying 'It doesn't take [/b]me X amount of time' is still not conveying whether or not it's true or false. though I don't really think a poll is going to be done just for this issue.

 

 

 

The only reason I can think of to want to increase the time period is to make ourselves look better.

 

And what is wrong with that, if I was correct in my previous post? We wouldn't be scamming anyone, and we'd probably get some form of 'latency' with the 'online' system. 5 minutes is good for a fast PM, but a lot of users re-appear on the forums after 2 minutes of refreshing the page, as it went from 72 users, to 50, to 74, to 80, 87, back down to 69. It was at 4am eastern when I did this.

 

 

 

I already have problems with PMing someone who I thought was online (because of the list)

 

I've never really had that problem, but for a moderator/Admin it could have been annoying, for regular users, I doubt it, unless they are creating an event (TET), or discussing something in a forum topic (Some kind of player-event, or player-made 'game' topic, or picture topic). Anyways, simple fix is to have two different timers, 1 for 'Online', and 1 for 'who is online'. Would be much more flexible.

[tripsis]

The only reason I can think of to want to increase the time period is to make ourselves look better.

 

And what is wrong with that, if I was correct in my previous post? We wouldn't be scamming anyone, and we'd probably get some form of 'latency' with the 'online' system. 5 minutes is good for a fast PM, but a lot of users re-appear on the forums after 2 minutes of refreshing the page, as it went from 72 users, to 50, to 74, to 80, 87, back down to 69. It was at 4am eastern when I did this.

 

At this point it's just personal preference. I don't like trying to make ourselves look good through things other than website/forum features. "Who is online" is a cosmetic feature and if we used it to make ourselves look better, it's trying to give ourselves a leg up by showing off how many active users we have. To me it just seems more like bragging than trying to advertise the site by creating fun new features.

 

 

 

And those numbers don't really prove much unless you noticed that the same users were drifting offline and online. It could have been completely different users logging on.

 

 

 

I already have problems with PMing someone who I thought was online (because of the list)

 

I've never really had that problem, but for a moderator/Admin it could have been annoying, for regular users, I doubt it, unless they are creating an event (TET), or discussing something in a forum topic (Some kind of player-event, or player-made 'game' topic, or picture topic). Anyways, simple fix is to have two different timers, 1 for 'Online', and 1 for 'who is online'. Would be much more flexible.

 

It hasn't really happened to me when sending official PMs. It has only happened to me (noticeably) when PMing friends for fun. I would notice that one of my friends was online and I'd send them a message and then they'd appear offline a minute or so later.

[InkofDeath]

At this point it's just personal preference. I don't like trying to make ourselves look good through things other than website/forum features. "Who is online" is a cosmetic feature and if we used it to make ourselves look better, it's trying to give ourselves a leg up by showing off how many active users we have.

 

Basically that's what it's going to come down to. What forum mentality is going to win over the other. Giving Tip.It a leg-up, would be increasing it past 20, or what other communities have their time set at. Tip.It has the smallest time, Tip.It can still go to 10 minutes but it won't be a true advantage.

 

 

 

As I've already explained I really don't think there's anything wrong with increasing the time, not out of personal preference, just out of speculation on how misleading the times are at 5 minutes, or 10 minutes, or higher.