Who is using the CFC forums ?

[Fred McKim]

I didn't spend a lot of time on this, but the raw data suggests that in the past month there have been a total of 52 viewers to the CFC Forum, 35 of which have been CFC Governors. If we reduce the activity level to the past week we see there have been 35 viewers, of which 23 were governors.

I'm still hoping more volunteers will come forward to help out with Committee work, by the time of the AGM. I would say so far there about 6-8 who have volunteered (besides Executive candidates). If we dont get more of the viewers involved, everything gets left in the hands of the Executive (and only so much can get done).

Just my opinion.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred:

I would think those stats are probably pretty representative.

On this forum, I usually expect on a thread of general interest, about 50 views in a few days, and then the viewing pretty much stops.

I was not aware though that about 2/3 of the viewers are governors ( 23 governors out of 52 viewers ). I had not thought the governors' attendance was that high - though I suppose 23/60 governors or 38% of the governors in attendance is not that great.

Bob

[Fred McKim]

It was 35 governors who have been here in the past month, of which 23 were in the past week.

Regular CFC members don't seem very interested 17 in the past month, of which 12 were in the past week. Still a long way to go to catch up to chesstalk ! :)

[Ken Craft]

That's why other than the creation of Governors' site, there was not a need to create a CFC discussion group. An example of spreading resources thinly and lacking in collegiality.

[Fred McKim]

I disagree, Ken. I think it gives the members a chance to voice their opinions and concerns, that wasn't really possible before. Hopefully this year there'll be some of us listening.

Let's keep the chesstalk site for general chess comments and questions and CFC Bashing :):)

I doubt there was whole lot of extra overhead in setting up extra security for a Governor site.

[Ken Craft]

Geez, you have a lot of opinions all of a sudden, Fred.;)
I've been having this debate with Bob A for years.
I see more discussion of the Federation going on over at the Chesstalk site at the moment than I do hear by the membership. Maybe you should take a look.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

Continuing our inexhaustible debate, I feel CFC as an organization needs to offer a forum of its own where its governors and members can meet and dialogue. We have been somewhat successful in getting governors to come and debate here.

Getting CFC members to also check this site out on a regular basis is a slower process - the CMA ChessTalk has been around for a long time, and was the only forum. And it has more viewers, and so tends to draw more viewers. But there are some members who are interested in CFC affairs and come here to see what the real issues are - ChessTalk only covers a bit of the goings on, and then often the threads get highjacked. Also, there is a lot of unnecessary CFC bashing on ChessTalk. Our threads are informative, and let members know what is going on currently, and by the Governors.

I think it definitely serves a purpose, and the cost is minimal.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred:

Thanks for correcting my stats interpretation above.

But you may be unaware that the " members' list " feature shows those visiting both the Governors' Discussion Board, and the members' CFC Chess Forum, combined. I have had this discussion with administrator Chris Mallon before on this point. He advises that it would take a little bit of expense to have separate " viewers' lists " for each board.

So your 52 viewers in the last month is to both boards. So it is not possible to say how many governors were coming to the CFC Chess Forum. For example, they all could have last come to the Governors' Board and none to the CFC Chess Forum. No way to determine this. So my attempts to do stats on percentage of governors visiting this forum cannot really be done on the information available.

Also, the list gives only the last visit. So we do not know how many " views " a particluar person may have made in the last month to both fori ( think that's the Latin plural of " forum " ). This is important because it means we can only track the actual activity on either board by counting the number of " views " for each thread in the last month. But even this we cannot do, because the " views " total is from the date of the original post. Looking only at the " members' list " gives us no information on " activity ". So the traffic on the CFC sites is much higher than your stats would imply. As I said, you get an average of 50 views per non-reply major thread on the CFC Chess Forum. In the last week there have been 11 threads where a reply post has been posted between June 17 and 24. So we can say on average that there have likely been at least 550 " views " in just the last week. In fact it is more, because some of these threads have had multiple reply posts in the last week, each reply post generating its own viewers.

Another interesting activity stat is to add all the views of all the threads that have been posted on in the last week - it comes to about 6200 views. This is not views in the last week, but the total number of views the last 11 most recently posted threads this week generated ( since the post was originally made ). Note that there were 3,615 views of the Gillander's candidacy thread, where Bob explained his platform in what he described as a dynamic question and answer format. That one post generated 134 reply posts !! Again this shows the growing activity on the members' CFC Chess Forum. It also shows its growing importance, as the Presidential Candidate used this board as part of his campaign.

So I think CFC is wise to have revived the two discussion boards. They are serving the purpose.

I also think CFC should seriously look at the cost of upgrading the 2 sites, to allow us more accurate useage information for each board, if it is not too expensive.

Bob

[Kerry Liles]

So I think CFC is wise to have revived the two discussion boards. They are serving the purpose.

I also think CFC should seriously look at the cost of upgrading the 2 sites, to allow us more accurate useage information for each board, if it is not too expensive.

Bob

An obvious point is that ChessTalk is operated by Strategy Games/CMA - clearly a "competitor" of the CFC in some ways... The CFC has to have its own discussion board that is controlled and paid for by the CFC. That is clear. The costs associated with running that are very minimal.

Not so long ago, the "real" info could often be found on the Ottawa Club message board, but since it did not require even trivial registration, it took the obvious nose dive into a cess pool. At least ChessTalk and the CFC board require some sort of registration process and they are lightly moderated - a good compromise.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Kerry:

Interesting that you mention about CMA running the ChessTalk. Here is what Larry Bevand had to say on ChessTalk recently about our members' CFC Chess Forum :

June 23, 2010, 06:31 PM
Larry Bevand
Administrator

" For Bob Armstrong...and others of course :)

Hi Bob,

............

First I think what you [ Bob Armstrong ] are doing on the CFC site is awesome! "

So even Larry, as a CFC member, applauds the coming onstream of the members' CFC Chess Forum, and its usefulness to discuss CFC policy and real CFC issues, in a positive atmosphere ( there is here criticism of the CFC of course, but the site seems to have avoided the gratuitous CFC bashing sometimes seen on ChessTalk ). This is a board where healthy debate on the CFC takes place.

Thanks Larry for your open-mindedness, and ongoing support of the CFC.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

I also think CFC should seriously look at the cost of upgrading the 2 sites, to allow us more accurate useage information for each board, if it is not too expensive.

Bob

It's all one board. $60 to get the latest software upgrades (actually gives you upgrades for one year). Plus I just received the notification that the hosting plan is expiring soon (August I think). Still really a trivial sum for what it provides.

The newest version of vB is actually designed to operate the entire website, not just the forums - you could in theory build the entire CFC website integrated into vB, one login for everything. Membership info would be stored online, you could purchase a renewal online and it would automatically and instantly take effect.... lots of good stuff.

[Fred McKim]

I think Chess Talk had 80 some visitors yesterday. We have a ways to go, but I think each have their own purpose...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

Good to hear. I am the worst techie - I only get bits and pieces of things. So I can raise some flags sometimes on issues, but I have to leave it to people like you to make any progressive changes that can be made.

If all of this can be wrapped up in one package, then all the better. But the President was the point person on the new website file last year, and it went nowhere. I talked to Bob Gillanders yesterday, and he is interested in the issue and I think would like to move forward on it. But would it be helpful to him to have a " New Website Committee " formed, with him as chair perhaps, to give him some more technical support to get it moving - to start a process of drafting a Request for Proposals for example? I mentioned to him the volunteer member who had been willing to work with Eric on this last year ( an IT specialist ), and though last year was a disappointment to him, as he could move nothing forward dealing with Eric, he might still be willing to volunteer again in some capacity - maybe to draft a Request for Proposals for a Committee ( he might be good, because as I understand it he has no interest in bidding on the project himself, though he could do it ). And of course, Bob does have experience with Vince Chow who also he might be able to get involved in some way. Just some ideas, because someone else will have to move the technology file forward on this - I'll only be able to be an onlooker.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred:

Unfortunately, I have now formed the view that there are many CFC members who go to ChessTalk, who really have no interest in discussing hardcore CFC issues in a meaningful way. They are happy to just deal with lighter chess issues that predominate on ChessTalk - e.g. " Are Chess Players Fit? " - a worthwhile topic, but not one requiring some heavy thinking, nor deciding whether to commit some volunteer hours to do something. I think there are many who will never come here on any regular basis - we are always going to have substantially less traffic than ChessTalk.

But one thing that I think would give our activity somewhat of a boost, would be regular posting on matters of interest by CFC Executive. Only a few of this year's executive have posted here in the last year, and not often. The new administration should give this some serious thought, and whether they will make it a priority in their " to do on a regular basis " lists.

Bob

[Fred McKim]

I'm hoping that we can keep some serious dialogue happening on the CFC forum and the Governor's Forum this year.

I've made a commitment to contribute for this coming year whether an Executive or simply Governor.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred:

Glad to hear that - if you become Treasurer, I hope it is contagious to the rest of the executive! I know Bob G. believes in the value of communication, and I believe he intends to post here regularly, as time permits.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I've made a commitment to contribute for this coming year whether an Executive or simply Governor.

With your contributions this forum got a new breath ;)

***

Just don't forget this forum is open with the name and the last name visible for everybody. Not many likes that, thus it might never be very popular.

Only 15 people with more than 100 posts :cool:

[Christopher Mallon]

When I was President, I tried saying Exec members could only post on the CFC board, not on Chesstalk. I don't think the time was right for that back then, but perhaps it could be tried again?

(That was on CFC-related issues... they could still use chesstalk for non-CFC related issues)

[Fred McKim]

Chris: I like to think common sense will prevail.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

I have to admit I'm not very fond of prohibitions. I'd rather try to have the President educate the executive on the importance of using the CFC Boards, and then let them decide. Maybe sometimes they may want to hit a larger number of the chess playing public, and so ChessTalk gives more opportunity for that. But on hardcore CFC issues, maybe our board would be better to create governor/member dialogue. I'd hope the executive would be reasonable in their approach.

[Bob Gillanders]

When I was President, I tried saying Exec members could only post on the CFC board, not on Chesstalk. I don't think the time was right for that back then, but perhaps it could be tried again?

(That was on CFC-related issues... they could still use chesstalk for non-CFC related issues)

Oh really? So how did that work out? :p

That still sounds like a bad idea. You tell someone they can't do something
and.......well, you guess what happens!

[Bob Armstrong]

Here is who has visited the Governors' Discussion Board/members' CFC Chess Forum ( the stats for both are combined ) in the last week ( 7 days - Tuesday, June 22 - Monday, June 28 ) - it is important that everyone knows who is being active, and who is not:

CFC Executive Committee

1.Stijn De Kerpel CFC Vice-President 06-23-2010
2.Michael Barron CFC Youth Coordinator Today
3.Hal Bond CFC FIDE Representative International Arbiter International Organizer 06-24-2010

Current CFC Governors

4.Bob Armstrong CFC Governor Today
5.Ken Einarsson CFC Governor Today
6.Michael von Keitz CFC Governor Today
7.Fred McKim CFC Governor Today
8.Garvin Nunes CFC Governor Today
9.John Coleman CFC Governor Today
10.Paul Leblanc CFC Governor Today
11.Halldor P. Palsson CFC Governor Today
12.Ken Craft CFC Governor Today
13.Ilia Bluvshtein CFC Governor Today
14.Hugh Brodie CFC Governor Today
15.David Lavin CFC Governor International Arbiter Today
16.Gary Gladstone CFC Governor Today
17.Vlad Rekhson CFC Governor Yesterday

CFC Members/Public

18.Kevin Pacey Pawn Today
19.John Cordes Junior Member Today
20.Pierre Dénommée International Arbiter Today
21.Kerry Liles Knight Today
22.Vladimir Drkulec Empty Square Today
23.Aris Marghetis Today
24.Garland Best Empty Square Today
25.Ed Seedhouse Empty Square Yesterday
26.Erik Malmsten Empty Square 06-26-2010
27.Nikolay Noritsyn 06-26-2010
28.Bob Gillanders Bishop 06-25-2010
29.Andrei Botez Pawn 06-25-2010
30.Stephen Wright Empty Square 06-24-2010
31.Larry Bevand Empty Square 06-23-2010

These 31 people viewed numbers of threads and numbers of replies on both boards ( it cannot be determined how often a viewer might have been to the board in the week, since the date shown is just the date of their most recent visit ).

Here are the number of threads for each board where someone started a thread or posted a reply to a thread in the last 7 days, and the total number of views of those threads since they started:

1. Governors' Discussion Board

10 threads - total of 794 views ( Average of 79.4 views per thread )

2. Members' CFC Chess Forum

11 threads - total of 2,422 views ( Average of 220 views per thread )

It seems to me that this is reasonable activity on these two boards, and that it shows the boards are serving their purposes, and justifies the CFC reviving them, when they had been let die for some time. I must say though that I have some concern that only 17 governors out of 60 have visited either board in the last week - seems to me substantially more governors should be doing more active monitoring of the 2 boards.

The existence of the 2 CFC Boards in no way criticizes or interferes with the CMA ChessTalk Board - the boards of both organizations are serving different purposes for the Canadian chess community.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob, you are likely substantially understating the number of viewers.

For instance, you have my last visit as June 25th. But not so, that is date of my last post. I was on this morning, but didn't login because I didn't want to post anything.

How many people visit the site counting those that don't login? I'm sure it's a lot more than 31. ;)

[Christopher Mallon]

Oh really? So how did that work out? :p


Not too badly... it wasn't so much of a "tell" as a "I think we should do this" and people agreed.

[Ken Craft]

What would the point be of not posting on Chesstalk? The CMA must be seen as an ally. They promote chess in Canada, remember?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

Good point - I automatically get logged in when I bring up the site, and so I forget that people can view and not be logged in. So the Boards are even more active than I suspect - great.

Bob

[John Cordes]

I'll have to report this to my gerontologist :)
John


Here is who has visited the Governors' Discussion Board/members' CFC Chess Forum ( the stats for both are combined ) in the last week ( 7 days - Tuesday, June 22 - Monday, June 28 ) - it is important that everyone knows who is being active, and who is not:


CFC Members/Public

19.John Cordes Junior Member Today

Bob

[Fred McKim]

Yes, I have to admit I forgot that people don't have to sign in when I posted my stats last week.

I never signed in, until I started posting. I automatically sign in now - good thing as I'd never remember that phone number looking password.

[Christopher Mallon]

Well if you aren't signed in, you can't see the Govs forum...

[Fred McKim]

Yeah, that was the other reason !!