Monday, 26 March 2007

A Great Statistic to Ponder

Most writers' sites have a coffee-shop or "lounge"

In Boot Camp we have

Chat Room for Writers- 2,047 posts
Chat Room for Wasters 0,157 posts

The former has stuff like challenges, lists of comps, publication news, lists of submissions, list of hits and prizes, general admin issues. On page 1 there is ONE "silly" my "Absolute Proof there is a God", none on page 2, none on page 3. That's what "Chat Room for Wasters" is for. So is this a dull place to work? Nope. But don't we need to chat about inconsequential stuff? NOPE

I was browsing another writers site and I recorded the first 40 names posting in their lounge/coffee shop. Some post HUNDREDS of posts and it's very "territorial". This place DOMINATES the site, gets some near-flames, loads of angst.

One post was from someone leaving because s/he simply couldn't get critiques even when s/he begged.

In Boot Camp a story posted by Friday 9PM gets at least eight DETAILED critiques by midnight Monday

But here is the statistic.

I cross-matched the first 40 "Loungers" with recorded HITS.

Just TWO of the 40 Loungers (and they post and post and post) have recorded a hit in 2007

Nine other people (NOT Loungers) have recorded hits in 2007

How about 2006?

9 "Loungers" recorded a hit in 2006
34 NON-loungers recorded a hit in 2006

Combining 2006 and 2007, (15 months), of 40 "Loungers" just 10 had published a hit in that time.

In 15 months, ten loungers, 44 non-loungers

If a hit is posted it's 4.4 times more likely to come from someone NOT posting in the lounge

What does that mean? It means that "Loungers" con themselves into believing they are active writers, while the real ones just get on with it and avoid the distractions of chatter.

To be fair there are three other "Loungers" who have novels in the shops.. so call it 13/40 = 29%

Just 29% of Loungers have published ANYTHING in the last two calendar years.

And the site I'm referring to is one of the better ones!

No comments: