Login Join IOPS

IOPS Website Activity In Numbers

forest
  • Written by:
  • Published on:
  • Categories:
  • Comments:
  • Share:

I was curious about what the 3544 figure actually means in terms of activity on this website, so I gathered some stats by scraping the site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping). They are certainly not precise, but they give an overall idea.

The figures are based on the numbers of comments to blog posts and posts in forum discussions, project-specific activity and event-postings are not taken into account. Posts from (some of the?) accounts with now deactivated profiles don't display any name, so contributions from these profiles can't be distinguished from each other.

All contributions that can be associated with a profile are counted, and the month of the first and the last contribution is stored.

You can read the chart as follows.

"active":   there were N members active in this month

"total" : there were N members total in this month, which means they were active in this month or before, and their last activity took place in this or in a later month.

"first" : there were N members first active in this month

"last" : there were N members who weren't active after this month until today.

 


All members ever found "active" here,  cumulated: 460.

members active in Mar 2012: 38 of 38, first: 38 last: 9
members active in Apr 2012: 99 of 102, first: 73 last: 36
members active in May 2012: 98 of 121, first: 55 last: 43
members active in Jun 2012: 94 of 120, first: 42 last: 42
members active in Jul 2012: 65 of 92, first: 14 last: 14
members active in Aug 2012: 61 of 104, first: 26 last: 22
members active in Sep 2012: 61 of 105, first: 23 last: 20
members active in Oct 2012: 51 of 100, first: 15 last: 13
members active in Nov 2012: 69 of 109, first: 22 last: 21
members active in Dec 2012: 57 of 103, first: 15 last: 15
members active in Jan 2013: 62 of 100, first: 12 last: 14
members active in Feb 2013: 45 of 97, first: 11 last: 16
members active in Mar 2013: 50 of 92, first: 11 last: 17
members active in Apr 2013: 45 of 88, first: 13 last: 16
members active in May 2013: 40 of 80, first: 8 last: 14
members active in Jun 2013: 35 of 75, first: 9 last: 11
members active in Jul 2013: 31 of 70, first: 6 last: 7
members active in Aug 2013: 27 of 70, first: 7 last: 6
members active in Sep 2013: 30 of 67, first: 3 last: 7
members active in Oct 2013: 17 of 61, first: 1 last: 0
members active in Nov 2013: 30 of 67, first: 6 last: 5
members active in Dec 2013: 32 of 68, first: 6 last: 6
members active in Jan 2014: 32 of 68, first: 6 last: 10
members active in Feb 2014: 25 of 62, first: 4 last: 7
members active in Mar 2014: 32 of 65, first: 10 last: 10
members active in Apr 2014: 26 of 59, first: 4 last: 10
members active in May 2014: 43 of 59, first: 10 last: 20
members active in Jun 2014: 49 of 49, first: 10 last: N/A

 

 


 

The above numbers take into account any activity. If we instead define "active member" as someone who contributed at least 10 times total and at least once per month on average (so someone contributing 12 times total in 20 months between the first and last contribution isn't regarded "active"), the activity looks as follows:

All members ever found "active" here,  cumulated: 91.

members active in Mar 2012: 23 of 23, first: 23 last: 0
members active in Apr 2012: 48 of 50, first: 27 last: 3
members active in May 2012: 44 of 55, first: 8 last: 2
members active in Jun 2012: 46 of 56, first: 3 last: 7
members active in Jul 2012: 41 of 52, first: 3 last: 0
members active in Aug 2012: 33 of 55, first: 3 last: 0
members active in Sep 2012: 39 of 61, first: 6 last: 2
members active in Oct 2012: 33 of 61, first: 2 last: 4
members active in Nov 2012: 44 of 62, first: 5 last: 5
members active in Dec 2012: 40 of 62, first: 5 last: 4
members active in Jan 2013: 44 of 61, first: 3 last: 6
members active in Feb 2013: 32 of 57, first: 2 last: 4
members active in Mar 2013: 33 of 54, first: 1 last: 5
members active in Apr 2013: 28 of 52, first: 3 last: 5
members active in May 2013: 22 of 47, first: 0 last: 2
members active in Jun 2013: 24 of 47, first: 2 last: 3
members active in Jul 2013: 24 of 45, first: 1 last: 2
members active in Aug 2013: 22 of 46, first: 3 last: 1
members active in Sep 2013: 27 of 47, first: 2 last: 4
members active in Oct 2013: 15 of 43, first: 0 last: 0
members active in Nov 2013: 19 of 44, first: 1 last: 0
members active in Dec 2013: 24 of 46, first: 2 last: 2
members active in Jan 2014: 19 of 44, first: 0 last: 3
members active in Feb 2014: 18 of 41, first: 0 last: 4
members active in Mar 2014: 19 of 38, first: 1 last: 1
members active in Apr 2014: 18 of 38, first: 1 last: 4
members active in May 2014: 22 of 34, first: 0 last: 5
members active in Jun 2014: 29 of 29, first: 0 last: N/A

 

regards, Johann

Discussion 32 Comments

  • Kim Keyser 29th Jun 2014

    Thanks for making this.

  • Sean Tinney 29th Jun 2014

    Hi Johann,
    Is there no system of web analytics in place for this site? Who is the webmaster, can you not gain access to better data?

    Judging by these figures, and the lack of response from the ICC, 3500+ figure looks like a fantasy. There needs to be a proper audit of the membership, to see who is willing to do some work and put this on a more stable footing.

    On a separate note, I'm having a look into the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It was the German Green party that leaked a draft document recently, a Sven Giegold. I was wondering if there was much about it in the German press. Perhaps you wouldn't mind doing a quick survey of that for me if your not too busy. If you fancy it, message me.

    Thanks for the analysis.

    • Johann Borck 29th Jun 2014

      Hi Sean,
      re web analytics: there seems to be a google analytics account for this page, yes

      re webmaster: there's been some website project that's been inactive for a long time now, there's certainly some webmaster, but I have no contact to anyone, and IIRC there's been a number of requests for such data, I have no idea how fruitful they were.

      re better data: actually the data is quite good when it comes to observable activity, it just doesn't say anything about mere visitors to the site.

  • Sarah Owens 29th Jun 2014

    Yes, thanks, Johann, we need more data and analysis.

    I think I understand, barely, most of the terms and the displays, but could you talk a little bit more about the data in prose? Maybe explain the situation in Nov 2012? (69 members were ________? making a total of 109 ______________? first: 22 last: 21

    And can you suggest what conclusions we might draw from this data?

    • Johann Borck 29th Jun 2014

      It's quite simple:
      "active" means someone commented on a blog, or in a forum discussion, if a member posted twice or more, it's still counted as a single active member, of course, so e.g.

      members active in Nov 2012: 69 of 109, first: 22 last: 21

      means 69 members were active as per the above definition in Nov 2012,
      109 members were active for the first time before or in Nov 2012, and for the last time in Nov 2012 or in a later month.

      So someone who was first active in Aug 2012 and last active in Jan 2013, and wasn't active in Nov 2012, would be counted in the "total" #, but not in the "active" # for Nov 2012

      Does that help?

    • Sarah Owens 29th Jun 2014

      Yes, thank you.

    • Johann Borck 29th Jun 2014

      Hello Sarah,
      with respect to drawing conclusions, I think that should be up to the actually active members here, which are just a handful, as the data suggests.
      My impressions are that
      a) the numbers game ("we need X thousand members to do Y") makes no sense whatsoever
      b) the few members who are actually active on a regular basis should be aware they're basically on their own
      c) the people in charge of this site couldn't care less (otherwise it wouldn't have been me as a random, basically completely inactive, 'member' collecting these numbers end of June 2014, without access to the actual database)
      d) http://www.iopsociety.org/blog/ditch-the-internationale-re-evaluating-iops , http://www.iopsociety.org/blog/what-now
      and http://www.iopsociety.org/blog/whatq-nowqq seem quite relevant in this context.

  • Rick New 29th Jun 2014

    Hello Johann,

    Thank you for taking the time to post these numbers.

    Perhaps, those who are reading posts (like listeners in a group) could also be considered participants?

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_%28Internet_culture%29

    Rick

    • Johann Borck 29th Jun 2014

      Hello Rick,
      sure they could be considered participants in some way, it would certainly be interesting to look into those numbers, too. I just don't have access to that data. In terms of "active" participation as per the above definition, which is what I was interested in, and what's observable to me (as opposed to the "lurkers") I think the answer should be no, however.

  • Rick New 29th Jun 2014

    Hi Johann,

    Thanks for your reply.

    Just imagining (since that's all we can do) what it means for those readers who don't post.

    They have taken time to sign up, they are perhaps interested enough to read the posts and may be effected by the content. They may visit the site a few times a month to check in and like you, see if anything has changed.

    Perhaps your story is a little like that one? You didn't post for a while, but checked in and watched how things were going. When you felt the time was right, you jumped in. Just wondering if there isn't a lot of action going on while reading or waiting for the right time. Something kept you coming back to read.

    I was in the same situation for a long time, too. "Participatory" is what keeps me interested, as well as your post about "taking a big step back."

    Regards,

    Rick

  • Sean Tinney 29th Jun 2014

    What we really need to know is how many people visit/login, how long they stay, and what pages they read. Then we might be able to realistically gauge where we are at.

    Does anyone know who maintains this site? Is there any policy in place regarding data privacy?

    The NSA might have hijacked it and are confounding all attempts to organise anything; it certainly seems like it at times.

    • Johann Borck 29th Jun 2014

      FWIW, the site is maintained by http://www.iopsociety.org/profile/jason-chrysostomou

    • Sean Tinney 29th Jun 2014

      I thought that looked promising for a moment; he made a post on the 28th of June. Then I realised it was 28th June 2013.

    • Lambert Meertens 30th Jun 2014

      Actually, the responsibility is being transferred to Johannes.

    • Sean Tinney 30th Jun 2014

      Hi Lambert,
      I noticed in a post some time ago, that you asked for data about numbers entering the site, did you have any success?

    • Lambert Meertens 30th Jun 2014

      No, I never received a reaction to that.

    • Johannes 4th Jul 2014

      Lambert could you please tell me what data exactly you wanted to have?

    • Lambert Meertens 4th Jul 2014

      I don't remember now if this was exactly what I wanted to know then, but at the moment I'm in particular interested in the numbers of not-logged-in users ("visitors") to our site as well as how much time they spent there. For use in the analysis of the non-members survey, I'm most interested in the period from 2012-12-28 through 2014-06-25.

      Some visitors obviously came more than once, and I'm more interested in the number of unique visitors. That can be seen (although not perfectly so) by looking at the IP addresses, but these should not be made available for reasons of privacy. However, they can be scrambled so as to reveal no personal information. If possible, I'm also interested (like Sean above) to see how long they stay, and what pages they read.

    • Johannes 4th Jul 2014

      I'll see what I can do and keep you posted.

    • Johann Borck 5th Jul 2014

      Hi Johannes,
      there is a google analytics account for iopsociety.org, if you have access to that, it should be easy to get all the mentioned information, and much more.

    • Johann Borck 5th Jul 2014

      I just double-checked, and didn't find the relevant scripts linked - I thought I'd seen them last week.

  • Peter Lach-Newinsky 30th Jun 2014

    Hallo Johann, und vielen Dank fuer diese statistische Analyse. Sehr nuetzlich. Eine numerische Untermauerung des laecherlichen Partizipationsgrads innerhalb IOPS sowie der megalomanen Vorstellung einer 'Internationale'. Mach's gut.

  • Lizzie Meade 30th Jun 2014

    Hi everyone,

    Thanks Johann for doing this.

    I know that this only reflects the online 'active' members, but I just wanted to say that keep in mind that some members in the chapters are active on the ground, face to face, and have never made an online posting. In our chapter in Dublin for example, more than half of our active members have never made a post on the site. The ones that have, do so very rarely, maybe only once or twice over the last few years. I know that some members in New York are the same, and I'm sure this is also the case with other chapters.

    • Jon Doe 30th Jun 2014

      Hey! Here in NYC many of the members on the ground like to do more face to face stuff, feel the website is difficult to use and are not good about posting to the website. Also, many people sign up and agree and then are already too involved with there own activist projects that they agreed to before IOPS. To me that doesn't mean people are not active, just that there isn't an empowering way for IOPS to relate to them at this stage. Without resources, power, or common local direction, it doesn't make sense for people to drop their current work to join a still building organization. That fact should give people who have the time, inclination and passion to get resources, power and achieve local direction for IOPS , not simply assume that people are not interested. Its a long hall, not a sprint, and its best to lead with example.

    • Lizzie Meade 1st Jul 2014

      Hi Jon,

      I completely agree, sorry that wasn't clear in my post. I just wanted to put it out there that involvement on the website should not be the only factor when judging 'activity'. I personally would prefer to see much more vibrant on the ground activity right now than on the website, but I know and appreciate that it is not possible for everyone right now.

  • Sean Tinney 30th Jun 2014

    While it is true that some people are active without being on the site, for others the site is their only connection with IOPS. Which begs the question how many IOPS are there? A group could change their name and become an independent group; every one could vacate this site and stop posting. It would take three months of polling before anyone noticed. Even with people who don't post, there is no where near 3500 active members. And that's using "active" in the broadest sense of the word.

    The working groups should be utilising the people on this site to aid them in their work. For example: the London group are going on a protest about TTIP, on the 12 of July. The people on this site can be doing research around the issue and preparing some briefing documents, so that when they have their meeting to prepare, they have some good material to discuss. When they get on the demo and start talking to people there they are well informed, which will attract others to joining their group. I don't know how well prepared they are, I messaged them but have heard nothing back. They probably don't use the site much either.

    IOPS is a social network. At the moment it is a very badly implemented one.

    I don't assume people are not interested, quite the opposite. I think we could build a good organisation, but it requires an initial group of people who have the technical skills to get the thing moving. We need to develop the organisational logic and the technological platform. To do that we need an honest assessment of who is a member.

    • Fred Curran 30th Jun 2014

      You make a wonderfully valuable point, about our potential cooperative capacity. I like to call it, the inverted pyramid. In which we bring the weight of our specialized abilities to bear on a specific event.. location.. Increasing the ability of a single member trying to start a local chapter, or a working chapter planning a project.

    • Sean Tinney 1st Jul 2014

      A small group or even single members could have a significant effect if they can draw on support from a wider community.

      I've been looking into TTIP. There is a Finnish professor at the University of Helsinki who has been critical of aspects of it. I had a look at the Finnish membership, and there is a member who is a student at the University of Helsinki. If we start pulling contacts like this together, we could do some significant work.

    • Fred Curran 1st Jul 2014

      You are absolutely right. With more work like that, and even greater concentrations of our global effort for specific goals, the significance of the work has no bounds!

    • Rick New 1st Jul 2014

      >> A small group or even single members could have a significant effect if they can draw on support from a wider community.

      Yes.

  • Sascha Becker 31st Mar 2015

    Wich leads back to the initial point of this discussion:
    Is there anybody out there?
    A social network without communication is not a network or social either.
    But the point is: I do still believe, that international exchange on projects, ideas and stuff is extremly usefull.
    As most comments mention, most people are active in local groups, while the use of iops is more that of a network connecting these groups, not being active in a virtual "Overgroup".
    Am I correct?
    Hope so ... .

    • Lambert Meertens 3rd Apr 2015

      The members who are active on the website itself are obviously a very small group. I think that many more members are active in some way or other working towards another world without being empowered for that by virtue of being a member of IOPS.

      When I promoted the idea of IOPS as a network, this was vehemently opposed by some of the people who initiated IOPS. I don't see much of a future for IOPS without it having a supportive network function.