Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

What do thread views mean?


TopBilled
 Share

Recommended Posts

UPDATED

 

News: ME-TV Cutting in on TCM's Audience............4778 16351

Summer Under the Stars Lineup August 2014.......4622 4980

Classic film pairings........4769  4877

Why are some threads locked, words prohibited?....3543 3570

Guest Programmer Dolores Hart tonight on TCM.....3272  3351

Why do movie stars commit suicide?...2951  3024

Hollywood's depictions of death on screen...2759  2847

September 2014 Schedule.............1941  2741

Classic yes but is it essential?....2595  2648

So how many films have y-o-u recorded…?....2471  2567

News: Director blasts Leonard Maltin for inaccurate review....2476 2509

News: Kim Novak blasts bullies….2118  2171

It happened on this day.....1001  1961  

Any ideas who will be September's SOTM?.....1483  1501

Ruth Roman……..1037  1252

Movie Swan Song...............1074  1100

News: Dame May Whitty more popular than Rock Hudson!...1071 1095

On Broadway, but not in the movie....1022  1045

 

NEW

 

What do thread views mean?...2006

Top 10 most-searched titles on the TCM database…1927

Kay Francis appreciation thread…1836

Any ideas who will be October’s SOTM?...1292

News: Some viewers feel hosts do not watch all the movies they introduce…1128

 

INTERESTING FACT

 

42 out of 52 threads initiated since the upgrade are classified as HOT.

 

TopBilled

 

When I first saw your list, I was for some reason under the impession that your friend Primosprimos compiled this for you so that he could post this for you as a favor. I thought (sincerely), well that’s a good friend. I thought he did it because he was aware that it might be unseemly for you to publish this list on your own behalf. It might seem a bit self-serving and perhaps without discretion for you do this, it would be so obvious, to research and compile this list (an update no less) and then actually put it in a post.  

 

Then I realized that he was quoting a post you did yourself!!!!

 

TopBilled, I am not here to ridicule you, nor even to be satirical, or to be sarcastic or anything of the sort. But I do think it almost weird that you would post something like this, so overtly. It’s almost become an item of genuine interest, your persistence in this. Please allow me, I will be respectful.  

 

I note that the titles of the threads that you are so proud of have a common element. They appear to skirt the periphery of what some might call the primary purpose of the forums, to discuss more properly, the movies, the actors, the directors. Most of the ones that seem to be view-worthy do not refer to these things very much. I won’t itemize the thread names but what I’m saying is there. You can see for yourself. Many have a decidedly unserious, tabloid quality to them …perfect for attracting a certain involvement, and apparently extremely good at getting clicks, just the way that tabloid newspapers sell a lot at the newstands. (I hope this isn’t what you mean by Selected Journalism.)

 

But, there is a certain thread that you have put out in the past that has a certain formula to the title and that I like very much. It is very clever IMO. I almost hesitate to reveal it right now for fear that you will just post haste search out all of those threads and bump them up. But they might not result in many views because I note---and this is why I’m bringing them up---than none of these even make your list. They are, in my view, much more substantive and interesting because they deal with intelligent subjects that coincide with what interests most of us here.. These are your quality threads IMO, but they fail dismally according to your own standard. And since they don’t get views, you don’t care about them.

 

I know you’re a smart person and all that, but in view of your continued and somewhat fascinating (I must admit) preoccupation with thread views, etc., I don’t know really know how much you like or dislike movies, or what kind of movies you like, or anything like that. Most of your posts are to your own threads and their goal seems to serve to attract more views or keep the thread ‘hot.” How often do you post to another’s thread anyway?. Does anything others say in threads other than your own interest you at all? If not, this is sad, is it not? Especially when there are a lot of threads and many of which are quite germane to the primary purpose of the boards, things you are presumably interested in. But you rarely, if ever, post to them. You post to your own, apparently for very obvious reasons.

 

I would like to invite you participate in a discussion that is sort of just getting under way down in the genre forums. The thread is Western Rambles and the movie is “Stagecoach” a perennial favorite with just about everyone. I’m assuming you have seen it. I ask this only in the interest in community participation. I haven’t read all your stuff so I don’t know, but there are many, perhaps you too, who don’t post at length about movies very often. The Rambles encourages this (hence, Ramble) but does not require lenthy posts but it’s there if you want it. Short comments of just a few lines are just fine. In any case, it’s a nice place to go if a sustained discussion about a single movie interests you. So, if you would like to drop down I, for one, would be interested in your participation.

 

If you do not post to ‘Stagecoach’ that’s fine, I won’t mention it again, but I hope you do. It’s a good group down there and you may enjoy it very much. I’ve just watched this film again and I’m excited about it. What a great film! Do you like John Ford?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TopBilled

 

When I first saw your list, I was for some reason under the impession that your friend Primosprimos compiled this for you so that he could post this for you as a favor. I thought (sincerely), well that’s a good friend. I thought he did it because he was aware that it might be unseemly for you to publish this list on your own behalf. It might seem a bit self-serving and perhaps without discretion for you do this, it would be so obvious, to research and compile this list (an update no less) and then actually put it in a post.  

 

Then I realized that he was quoting a post you did yourself!!!!

 

TopBilled, I am not here to ridicule you, nor even to be satirical, or to be sarcastic or anything of the sort. But I do think it almost weird that you would post something like this, so overtly. It’s almost become an item of genuine interest, your persistence in this. Please allow me, I will be respectful.  

 

I note that the titles of the threads that you are so proud of have a common element. They appear to skirt the periphery of what some might call the primary purpose of the forums, to discuss more properly, the movies, the actors, the directors. Most of the ones that seem to be view-worthy do not refer to these things very much. I won’t itemize the thread names but what I’m saying is there. You can see for yourself. Many have a decidedly unserious, tabloid quality to them …perfect for attracting a certain involvement, and apparently extremely good at getting clicks, just the way that tabloid newspapers sell a lot at the newstands. (I hope this isn’t what you mean by Selected Journalism.)

 

But, there is a certain thread that you have put out in the past that has a certain formula to the title and that I like very much. It is very clever IMO. I almost hesitate to reveal it right now for fear that you will just post haste search out all of those threads and bump them up. But they might not result in many views because I note---and this is why I’m bringing them up---than none of these even make your list. They are, in my view, much more substantive and interesting because they deal with intelligent subjects that coincide with what interests most of us here.. These are your quality threads IMO, but they fail dismally according to your own standard. And since they don’t get views, you don’t care about them.

 

I know you’re a smart person and all that, but in view of your continued and somewhat fascinating (I must admit) preoccupation with thread views, etc., I don’t know really know how much you like or dislike movies, or what kind of movies you like, or anything like that. Most of your posts are to your own threads and their goal seems to serve to attract more views or keep the thread ‘hot.” How often do you post to another’s thread anyway?. Does anything others say in threads other than your own interest you at all? If not, this is sad, is it not? Especially when there are a lot of threads and many of which are quite germane to the primary purpose of the boards, things you are presumably interested in. But you rarely, if ever, post to them. You post to your own, apparently for very obvious reasons.

 

I would like to invite you participate in a discussion that is sort of just getting under way down in the genre forums. The thread is Western Rambles and the movie is “Stagecoach” a perennial favorite with just about everyone. I’m assuming you have seen it. I ask this only in the interest in community participation. I haven’t read all your stuff so I don’t know, but there are many, perhaps you too, who don’t post at length about movies very often. The Rambles encourages this (hence, Ramble) but does not require lenthy posts but it’s there if you want it. Short comments of just a few lines are just fine. In any case, it’s a nice place to go if a sustained discussion about a single movie interests you. So, if you would like to drop down I, for one, would be interested in your participation.

 

If you do not post to ‘Stagecoach’ that’s fine, I won’t mention it again, but I hope you do. It’s a good group down there and you may enjoy it very much. I’ve just watched this film again and I’m excited about it. What a great film! Do you like John Ford?

There are a lot of errors and assumptions in what you have written. You tried to be respectful but were not entirely successful. It is disrespectful to tell another poster how to post and to suggest where they should post. 

 

I will continue to do updates of my thread views. Sorry if you do not like it. It keeps with the subject of the thread. What do thread views mean, especially when some threads are more HOT than others. Some folks on here are too quick to shoot theories down, instead of recognizing the trends for what they are.

 

The most ridiculous thing I read recently was about how the number of views was wiped out when the system upgrade took affect. If anything, I had several threads that were in excess of 40,000 views and those all went to zero. Until now, I have not really mentioned that. I have focused on the threads that have been active since the upgrade. But clearly if I referenced the huge number of views I had in the past several years, the amounts would be staggering. 

 

I have some threads that have under 1000 views that I like much better than the meteoric threads. And I do post on others' threads, but I am very preferential about what other threads I choose to post on. If it is one that is dominated by posters whose behaviors I dislike or if it is a thread that has gotten off topic with no chance of getting back on track, I will not waste my time with it.

 

You are right that some of my threads have certain formulas. Also, there are some threads where all I have to do is write a provocative original post and I can sit back and let it take on its own direction. The ME-TV thread was one where after it hit 15000 views I deliberately stepped out of it to see how quickly, if at all, it would hit 16000 views without my presence. It did fine without me. 

 

At any rate, I do not see my posting style changing. But I do see the volume of my posts decreasing. I am in the process of transferring threads over to blogs, so that means they will continue in an area where I can approve other's comments. The Top 10 searches on the TCM database has already transitioned. It is continuing daily, but not here on these message boards. Again, I want the data to be available but I retain authority on the types of comments that others post to it.

 

I don't think I have addressed everything you wrote. But at least I replied which is more than I had originally intended. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When using your phone, do you have the issue where you can't bring up the latest post in the thread? I've found that even though I can see that there are recent replies, I'll be brought to an old response and cannot access the new ones no matter how many times I "click" to try and get in.

 

Hi, speedracer5. No, I've not encountered that problem, at least not that I've noticed. Though I probably just jinxed myself! Maybe it depends on the device you're using? I have a Blackberry (don't laugh, it works for what I need).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quoting TB:

"transferring threads over to blogs, so that means they will continue in an area where I can approve other's comments..... Again, I want the data to be available but I retain authority on the types of comments that others post to it."

 

"retain authority on the types of comments that others post"

 

-all I can say is "wow"!

:rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quoting TB:

"transferring threads over to blogs, so that means they will continue in an area where I can approve other's comments..... Again, I want the data to be available but I retain authority on the types of comments that others post to it."

 

"retain authority on the types of comments that others post"

 

-all I can say is "wow"!

:rolleyes:

 

Note:  I will view a thread just so it doesn't show up when I use the 'View new content' feature.    I also use the 'mark all as read' for topics like Games and Trivia' since I don't every go there and there is a lot of new content there.   

 

So just another case where a view doesn't mean I'm interested in a thread.  In fact it means I do NOT wish to see it but I have to view it so it drops down the 'new content' page. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, speedracer5. No, I've not encountered that problem, at least not that I've noticed. Though I probably just jinxed myself! Maybe it depends on the device you're using? I have a Blackberry (don't laugh, it works for what I need).

 

I'm using an iPhone 5S.  For the most part, everything works well on it.  It's just occassionally when I log on, I can see there are new replies; but my phone won't allow me to access it.  It's not a big deal, just curious if it's a bug with the software or with my phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note:  I will view a thread just so it doesn't show up when I use the 'View new content' feature.    I also use the 'mark all as read' for topics like Games and Trivia' since I don't every go there and there is a lot of new content there.   

 

So just another case where a view doesn't mean I'm interested in a thread.  In fact it means I do NOT wish to see it but I have to view it so it drops down the 'new content' page. 

 

Glad you said that. I too click on threads sometimes without any plan to read them. The reason for this is that I keep my screen personalization set to "high contrast black" (which is very unusual - few people do this). What that means is that my screen and the printing on it is basically white on black, like an old time chalk board in school. I began doing this years ago when my eyes were afflicted with cataracts (cured with surgery now) and I found the high contrast helped, but also found that high contrast on a light background was too glare-y for my eyes (which have always been sensitive to light). The black background was not only just right for me - it's really very aesthetically cool (trippy) as well. With this personalization setting, headings and such are shown in blue, but when they've been clicked upon they turn green and remain green for the next couple of weeks - an indication that they've been read. But whenever new information has been added to a previous read thread, the shade of green is brightened so that it stands out from all the other already read topics - and being on a black background this is very noticeable. So I've discovered that a thread I once clicked on (maybe just to see what it was about) has brightened its shade of green to get my attention, and I'll click on it just to turn its colour back. All this makes new messages very easy to find - including if I wanted to search for past posts by one particular member (clicking on their avatar lights it up and makes even posts years old easy to find).

 

The main point I'm getting to is: it counts as a view even if I didn't really view - clicking just keeps the colour scheme proper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Update (threads created in General Discussions):

 

News: ME-TV Cutting in on TCM's Audience  30,131

Does anyone find SONG OF THE SOUTH (1946) offensive...? 9,554

John Wayne as SOTM April 2014 7,505 (plus unknown number of views before upgrade)

It happened on this day 6,004

Summer Under the Stars Lineup August 2014 5,612

Classic Film Pairings 5,353 (plus unknown number of views before upgrade)

Half-way through this year's SUTS-- favorite days so far...? 3,876

September 2014 Schedule 3,748

Why are some threads locked, words prohibited? 3,637

Guest Programmer Dolores Hart tonight on TCM 3,616

Why do movie stars commit suicide? 3,200

Hollywood's depictions of death on screen 3,038

24 Hour Tribute for Lauren Bacall on TCM 2,959

So how many films have y-o-u recorded from TCM...? 2,947

(Not so) hidden subtext in THE STRANGER (1946)...? 2,881

Classic yes but is it essential? 2,861

News: Director blasts Leonard Matlin for inaccurate review 2,701

MLK Day = Sidney Poitier Day 2,614 (plus unknown number of views before the upgrade)

Any ideas who will be January's SOTM? 2,606

What do thread views mean? 2,507

News: Kim Novak blasts bullies 2,287

Kay Francis appreciation thread 2,098

Dr. Goldman's comments so far... 1,875

Ruth Roman 1,779 (plus unknown number of views before upgrade)

Any ideas who will be November's SOTM? 1,712

Any ideas who will be October's SOTM? 1,597

Who is your favorite British actress? 1,544

Any ideas who will be September's SOTM? 1,540

In character with Eugene Pallette 1,454

My love is SHANE-less 1,430

Lee Grant tonight on TCM 1,357

I think KLUTE could have been better 1,336

Any ideas who will be December's SOTM? 1,254

News: Some viewers feel hosts do not watch all the movies they introduce 1,188

Movie Swan Song 1,186

Nutty Jerry Lewis tonight on TCM 1,161

News: Dame May Whitty more popular than Rock Hudson! 1,146

The one where the men have more chemistry than the men and women 1,111

On Broadway, but not in the movie 1,101 (plus unknown number of views before upgrade)

I'm famous and I'm from Wisconsin 1,062

In character with S.Z. Sakall 1,014

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this message board is like many others then page views can be manipulated to be increased by using bots or other tactics. Not saying anyone here would ever do such a thing. :)

These views are accurate since the upgrade. If you disagree then bring it to the attention of TCM tech support not moi. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not trying to stir any pots, but I did an unscientific test myself and don't think the thread views is accurate. Not trying to make it seem like anything is wrong with the message boards, most boards can't accurately count views either.

 

It is almost impossible to know if it is a computer or a person who is accessing a thread after all unless TCM has some magical elixir they sprinkled over all the worlds computers, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not trying to stir any pots, but I did an unscientific test myself and don't think the thread views is accurate. Not trying to make it seem like anything is wrong with the message boards, most boards can't accurately count views either.

 

It is almost impossible to know if it is a computer or a person who is looking at a thread after all unless TCM has some magical elixir they sprinkled over all the worlds computers, lol.

Then how do we know you have the right number of posts attributed to your account and that you're not a bot? But let's go with those dime a dozen conspiracy theories because such a discussion will raise this thread another 1000 or 2000 views. Who needs Charlie Sheen to win when you've got a juicy plum like this. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you notice I said view a thread as opposed to post a new message. The admin can usually tell by the post content if is a bot or not. And yes some do use bots to even post messages.

 

Has it happened here yet? Possibly. The bots that post messages are almost always spam messages meant to get people to another site and increase link count. They target the same message board software sites or the largest boards out of sheer traffic.

 

BTW this is stuff that became mainstream 10 to 12 years ago or more when it mattered to many people and has been a constant pain for many ever since. It's not like I dreamed this up myself, lol.

 

The number of actual replies to a thread has more meaning than thread views IMVVVHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you notice I said view a thread as opposed to post a new message. The admin can usually tell by the post content if is a bot or not. And yes some do use bots to even post messages.

 

Has it happened here yet? Possibly. The bots that post messages are almost always spam messages meant to get people to another site and increase link count. They target the same message board software sites or the largest boards out of sheer traffic.

 

BTW this is stuff that became mainstream 10 to 12 years ago or more when it mattered to many people and has been a constant pain for many ever since. It's not like I dreamed this up myself, lol.

 

The number of actual replies to a thread has more meaning than thread views IMVVVHO.

I think you're trying to downplay how influential some of my threads are...LOL One of my threads has over 1,000 replies. And I am sure that some of the ones I created two or three years ago, way before the upgrade, have just as many replies because they've been around longer.

 

I am probably the third most influential in terms of posters who generate content that is read and replied to by a vast number of users. (If I was an egotist, I would be saying I was first, but I know that I am comfortably in the top five contributors here on the message boards-- active users as opposed to deceased or inactive members.)

 

But like I said, if you want to keep perpetuating theories about views, I welcome it because it only helps keep this thread (which functions as an index for my other threads) visible. It will remain on page one and 'HOT.' :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably the third most influential in terms of posters who generate content that is read and replied to by a vast number of users. (If I was an egotist, I would be saying I was first, but I know that I am comfortably in the top five contributors here on the message boards-- active users as opposed to deceased or inactive members.)

 

As far as I am concerned what you wrote about not being an egotist is not far from the truth. Who else would come on a message board and create a thread that counts the number of active threads with the number of views?

 

And then write that you consider yourself influential. Why not just say that your threads generate many views and comments. I do not think that what you write or start as threads can even remotley be called "influential". Popular? Yes.

 

But like I said, if you want to keep perpetuating theories about views, I welcome it because it only helps keep this thread (which functions as an index for my other threads) visible. It will remain on page one and 'HOT.'

 

 

I am not aware of many others who post on the message boards that would indicate that they like their threads to remain HOT and on page one. You sir are the only one who would say this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TB you also have over a whopping 10,000 posts. If you had only posted to one thread think of the possibilities, lol.

 

Anyway I am only teasing, I like your posts and only brought up the reality of bots and message boards. Now so this thread doesn't get more bot views due to me I am out, lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quoting TB:

"transferring threads over to blogs, so that means they will continue in an area where I can approve other's comments..... Again, I want the data to be available but I retain authority on the types of comments that others post to it."

 

-so do you want to post a link to your new 'blog' site?

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Not sure if we have found a legitimate answer to the question, what thread views mean-- do they mean popularity? Perhaps they mean a topic has on-going visibility on the message boards...? So instead of repeating topics, one thread can house most of the ideas related to the topic and remain meaningful over a long period of time. Just a few thoughts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if we have found a legitimate answer to the question, what thread views mean-- do they mean popularity? Perhaps they mean a topic has on-going visibility on the message boards...? So instead of repeating topics, one thread can house most of the ideas related to the topic and remain meaningful over a long period of time. Just a few thoughts...

Let's not overthink and complicate something so simple.

 

"Views" simply means the number of times board members took a look at a particular thread.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with their opinion of a thread, unless you consider a thread with 200 "views" but only 20 "replies" as indicating a not so good opinion of a thread by board members....But it could only mean they felt they had no legitimate or fitting resonse to a particular thread or it's topic, so they just took a look and moved on....

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not overthink and complicate something so simple.

 

"Views" simply means the number of times board members took a look at a particular thread.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with their opinion of a thread, unless you consider a thread with 200 "views" but only 20 "replies" as indicating a not so good opinion of a thread by board members....But it could only mean they felt they had no legitimate or fitting resonse to a particular thread or it's topic, so they just took a look and moved on....

 

 

Sepiatone

 

Actually Sepia, if one would compute the "view-to-reply rate" of ANY thread located within this website(and probably ALL website forums), a "10%" rate would AND could be considered one hell of a good percentage, ya know.

 

In fact, I don't think ANY thread started by ANYONE ever "achieves" such a "high rate", and especially after a thread has run its course and has lost the interest of the people inclined to post replies within it.

 

(...and be it for reasons of a possible "sidetracking" from its original premise OR NOT!!!!!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...