Is there an easier way to count the posters in Democratic Primaries than this?

[LAS14]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Yonnie3 (a host of the Democratic Primaries forum).

Last edited Sat Mar 16, 2019, 05:48 PM - Edit history (4)

I figured I could type names of posters into a spreadsheet. As the project went on I would recognize names that I'd already entered and could skip them. At the end I could sort and delete duplicates. Time consuming, yes. I could do it over time. Does anyone have a better approach?

Edit after some replies: I'm NOT interested in gathering names. I'm only interested in the total count of participants in the Democratic Primaries forum. It's a figure MANY people have expressed an interest in knowing, but the replies here suggest the people suspect me of nefarious motives. Why not assume the best instead of the worst????

tia
las

STATUS REPORT 1: I hit 100 unique participants after counting in 4 high participation posts. I'll keep doing this over time until I begin to get mostly duplicates. Not scientific by a long shot, but it should tell us whether we're dealing with 100 or 1000.

STATUS REPORT 2: It took me 20 minutes to find 100 more unique participants. I'm going to do some errands now.

STATUS REPORT 3: I changed tactics and went through the names of the OPs for the seventeen available pages (1 month). The new names dropped off sharply at about page 6. The total is now 406. Next I'll go look at the most active post on each page to get a sample of people who reply but don't generate OPs.

STATUS REPORT 4: My last pass was to look at 2 or 3 active posts on each page. I tried to find threads that dealt with different topics. I stopped at page 10 because I was finding so few new names. Final report is that there are, for sure, 500 unique posters in this forum, and probably not a whole lot more.

[Sherman A1]

1. I don't see the need, but

if you do have at it.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. The ease with which new personas can be created makes a statistical analysis difficult.

And a truly dedicated fire-starter can spend a lot of time upping the post count for their chosen persona, so that does not really help as much as it should.

My advice is follow the rules of being a readerly reader as outlined by Roland Barthes. Pay attention. What is the author attempting to accomplish in the piece? Is there a conflict between the author's stated purpose and what the piece really does? Is this a result of poor writing or is it deliberate? If in doubt, test the waters. For instances, if you think someone represents Monsanto, you create some threads about issues near/dear to Monsanto and see if that poster always shows up.

This is assuming that you want to see if there are posting patterns that reveal ulterior motives, always a concern on an anonymous message board like this.

[LAS14]

6. No. I just want to know how many people are behind the percentages. Why would..

... you assume more nefarious motives???? Lots of people are wondering about the numbers. Just curiosity.

[McCamy Taylor]

15. Those numbers at the top mean absolutely nothing. I ignore them.

As far as I can tell they are there just to get people enthused about the primary. Write a post and "your " candidates numbers go up a point! You will write more posts.

Of course, getting Democrats enthused about the primary is a very worthy endeavor, so DU needs to keeps those numbers up there even if they mean nothing statistically speaking. They are a potent motivator. A symbol of democracy in action. A sign that we the people can speak out and make ourselves heard.

[Hortensis]

32. I think they count the members who identify a preference,

not the # of posts. If it counted posts, the percentage for one candidate who gets a great deal of mentions would be more than all the others combined.

Note also that some members will have chosen to quickly indicate a preference but otherwise post little or not at all. Thus we can't even have an idea of how many have weighed in from counting the number who post.

[NurseJackie]

3. Not sure what purpose it would serve. Honestly, it sounds like ...

Not sure what purpose it would serve. Honestly, it sounds like the beginnings of an enemies-list.

[LAS14]

4. ???? Just curiosity. There's lots of wondering about how many people...

... represent the percentages. Why would you think "enemies list???" What are we coming to?

[NurseJackie]

9. Look around.

Why would you think "enemies list???"

Look around. Isn't it obvious?

What are we coming to?

Who knows?

It's really difficult to remain united and to trust each other when we have people saying demoralizing and false things like... Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt". It's tiresome to continually hear people saying that Democrats are "feeble" or "corrupt". This is dangerous rhetoric that only divides the party.

It's correct to ask "what are we coming to?" when we have someone who says that the Democratic party is an "absolute failure" or that the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent" or "party of the elite". That's the kind of disinformation that tarnishes the appeal of the Democratic party.

All I'm trying to say is that when anyone says things that imply or insinuate that there's "no difference between Democrats and Republicans"... well, it simply serves no good purpose. Yet, amazingly we have people defending that type of divisive rhetoric and outright lies about Democrats.

You're right on target with your observation and question. When people attack the party like that it only creates disunity and distrust and it only makes people resentful and suspicious. Ultimately, that weakens the Democratic party. It dissuades people from supporting Democrats... and in the end that ONLY serves to benefit the GOP, and Trump, and Russia.

[Awsi Dooger]

20. Enemies lists are known to happen around here, especially during heated primaries

I was on the enemies list in 2008 because I supported Hillary above Obama. That was considered treasonous here and on other sites like Daily Kos. MyDD.com was basically the only major liberal site welcoming Hillary supporters and with majority Hillary supporters. I think there was even a book written about that.

The 2008 enemies list here is not conjecture. I was sent the list from an Obama supporter who got the list but didn't think it was fair. My name was on the list among many of the people I respected most. Everyone who received the list was told to put the names on ignore. Many fine posters from that list have never returned. That's how bad it was. Then it was hilarious in 2016 when many of the same posters who condemned Hillary supporters in 2008 as evil were now championing Hillary and writing glowing essays about her. Maybe I wasn't supposed to have a long memory. I didn't participate in primary season 2016 around here because I knew how it would evolve.

A larger field should help this time, IMO. Lots of uncertainty right now. It might get more nasty when the field narrows to 2 or 3, especially if it is razor close and the outcome in doubt.

2004 was fairly bad also, but not to the degree of 2008. There were targeted battles like Wes Clark supporters versus John Edwards supporters. I guess both camps viewed the other as obstacle. That type of thing could play out this time, along let's say Beto vs. Sanders or Warren vs. Sanders, etc.

BTW, I would be on the list of active poster but I do not believe I have started an OP in this forum. I generally post in brief windows while taking a break from my exhaustive computer work, so it is a lot of hit and run. I don't have time to hang around and post reply after reply, which is often necessary if starting a provocative OP.

[LAS14]

21. Thanks. Enlightening. I wasn't a member in 2008, but I'm appalled at what...

... you describe. Of course the Hillary/Sanders conflict was fairly bitter in 2016.

[Hortensis]

33. Thanks for the history, Awsi.

[Politicub]

5. Why?

I'm just curious to know what you're trying to understand.

[LAS14]

7. Many people have wondered how may people are behind the percentages....

... on this forum. I was just thinking about how to answer the question.

Jeeez. Out of half a dozen answers most suspect nefarious motives. What have we come to?

[Politicub]

8. Like who? I lurk here all the time, and you are the first I've seen wanting a list of posters' names

If you want to know percentages, look at the top of the screen. If you want to know names, then do the work to create your spreadsheet.

Still, why don't you say what you're going to do with this information and why it's important to you?

[LAS14]

12. I don't want a list of names except to get a count. LOTs of DUers have expressed...

...curiousity about the total count contributing to the percentages.

[SFnomad]

18. If "LOTs" of DUers have expressed curiosity about the total count ...

You can direct us to some of those posts, right?

As Politicub has stated, you're the first person I've seen openly asking that. Of course, that doesn't mean nobody else has, it's just I would say it's nowhere near as widespread as you're making it out to be.

[LAS14]

22. Politicub said I wanted a list of posters' names. I don't want the names except...

... as it seems to be the only way to get a count. And no, I'm not going to take the time to find the posts of people wishing they knew how large the population behind that percentages was. There are lots. Have been since the forum was created. Go look yourself.

[SFnomad]

24. In other words ... no, you can't provide it ... thought so ...

you should have just said that in the first place.

[LAS14]

25. Wrong. nt

[Hortensis]

34. LAS14, some members will have chosen to quickly indicate

a preference but otherwise post little, or not for some time, or not at all. Now and then someone asks a question that invites people who just read and leave to answer, and we find out that way that our community has a lot of members who don't feel a need to post. (Lots of "hi"s to old friends and talk of DU history in those interesting threads.)

But in any case, because of this we cannot get an idea of how many have clicked on a preference from counting the number who post.

[dalton99a]

10. It's a futile exercise. People change their minds

[MineralMan]

11. Of what use would such a list be?

Why would you spend your time compiling such a list?

Since DU is far from representative of Democrats on a nationwide basis, the selection of favorite candidates by DUers is really sort of meaningless. The Admins of the site thought it would be a good idea to make selecting a favorite easy, so that people could identify with their favorite candidate at the moment. They also decided not to display the numbers of people who have made a selection. I don't know the reason for that decision, though.

Some people have already changed their favorite a time or two, and more will do so as time passes. In addition, more people will come here as the primary elections get closer, so your list will always be incomplete. Some people who have chosen a favorite or selected undecided will never post here, but will read what is posted here?

Why waste your time?

[NurseJackie]

27. It's creepy to be stalked and monitored like that.

It needs to stop.

[NurseJackie]

28. Nobody wants to be doxxed. This is making me uncomfortable. Someone needs...

... to put an end to this.

[MineralMan]

40. People have been doing that always.

More than we would like to think. Various folks pop up and post links from or make snarky references to posts from years ago. I'm sure there are people who maintain spreadsheets on people they dislike, just for that purpose. I know you've experienced it.

It's creepy, yes, but there's no way to prevent it. You'll post something, and two minutes later, someone you barely know of will pop into the thread and say, "but you said this before, and link to some months or years old post, out of context, or course. Then the person will disappear, only to pop up again some other time and do the same thing.

Record-keepers with grudges. I've seen them on many discussion sites. It's a strange, but very common phenomenon.

[LAS14]

13. STATUS REPORT

I hit 100 unique participants after counting in 4 high participation posts. I'll keep doing this over time until I begin to get mostly duplicates. Not scientific by a long shot, but it should tell us whether we're dealing with 100 or 1000.

[rgbecker]

14. Keep it up LAS14!

I'm interested too and I'd love to see the members sorted by their candidate.

As for the negative response, it goes right along with the undecideds taking pot shots at all the candidates with nothing positive to add to the debate.

I agree with anyone that calls out those who write negatives about any of the candidates. Those lines will add to the GOP's war chest one the Democratic Candidate is determined in the Summer of 2020.

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it.

[LAS14]

16. Thanks! nt

[LAS14]

17. STATUS REPORT 2

It took me 20 minutes to find 100 more unique participants. I'm going to do some errands now.

[LAS14]

19. STATUS REPORT 3

I changed tactics and went through the names of the OPs for the seventeen available pages (1 month). The new names dropped off sharply at about page 6. The total is now 406. Next I'll go look at the most active post on each page to get a sample of people who reply but don't generate OPs.

[LAS14]

23. STATUS REPORT #4

My last pass was to look at 2 or 3 active posts on each page. I tried to find threads that dealt with different topics. I stopped at page 10 because I was finding so few new names. Final report is that there are, for sure, 500 unique posters in this forum, and probably not a whole lot more.

[Tipperary]

30. I am kind of surprised there are that many. Seems like pretty much the same names I see.

Apparently, I am not that observant lol. It will be interesting if the number climbs steadily as time goes by.

[guillaumeb]

26. Are you looking at the total replies as a percentage of all replies?

I assume no motive on your part other than curiosity.

And do even the Administrators know how many DU posts and replies there are in any given period?

[Hortensis]

29. LAS14, participants includes people who come to read but don't post.

Both members and nonmembers. Some may be here every day but post very seldom.

Only counting those who do post would produce very, very badly skewed results, and to what significance?

[NurseJackie]

31. It would certainly intimidate lurkers into NOT posting...

It would certainly intimidate lurkers into NOT posting once they become aware that some other member is "watching" and "counting" and "taking names" and making charts, graphs.

What's next? Doxxing, open source data mining, doxxing, google maps?

This shit needs to stop.

[Hortensis]

36. :) If quiet members are "intimidatable."

I don't think of them as lurkers, which seems unflattering, but rather as analogous to the sort of people who mostly just listen and nod or wander away at parties, leaving the talking to others. A preference of many.

In any case, since there is no accurate correlation to be drawn between # of posters or posts and the percentages for each candidate, any attempt to draw one will fail. Of course this little "favorite candidate" activity was set up that way on purpose. One member, one preference allowed, no posting required. No way to pump up a favorite's percentage...

And, although indicative of nothing BUT the preferences of those members who indicate one and thus not entirely accurate, the percentages have to be more indicative of reality than numbers of posts for candidates.

[LAS14]

35. I think membership is connected with posting, but I'm not completely sure. nt

[Hortensis]

38. Many come mainly to check the home page and LBN.

And membership in DU, like the Democratic Party, is connected with registering and nothing else. You don't have to pay or meet a posting requirements. The # who read and seldom post probably easily outnumber the posters.

[LAS14]

37. Are you sure that people who don't post are counted in the percentages?

I seem to remember that being asked to pick a preference was associated with trying to post.

[Hortensis]

39. That's one of two ways. The other is just to hit "more"

on the blue poll screen at the top and that'll lead to a place to click on a choice.

[Yonnie3]

41. Locking ...

Statement of Purpose

Discuss the 2020 Democratic primaries here.

This post does not discuss the primaries, but discusses posting in the Primary Forum.