who is online

[Ray]

Shows exact numbers now. :D

[Joker]

I like it :)

[ChinchillaX]

very cool.

[TSX 'R' US]

:thumbsup:

[hondafreak4eva]

cool :thumbsup:

[larchmont]

Shows exact numbers now. :D
Don't understand what you mean. Exact numbers, as opposed to what? Didn't we have exact numbers before?

[Ray]

Don't understand what you mean. Exact numbers, as opposed to what? Didn't we have exact numbers before?
It was set up with a time out period before.

[larchmont]

It was set up with a time out period before.
I thought maybe that was what you meant. And I'm still not completely sure I really get it, but if I do, I think this HURTS the site.

Do you mean that the list (and therefore, more importantly, the COUNT) includes only people who are on-site AT THAT MOMENT? (Or very close to that.)
If so, that puts this site at a disadvantage relative to comparable sites -- it would mean that a lower "count" is shown, and that fewer names are listed as being on-site at any given time. We discussed this before, and the admins made some adjustment in the counting method to decrease the site's disadvantage. If I understand right, this puts us back to where we were before in this regard.

I know that some people have said they don't care about the "count" or who's on-site. BUT MANY PEOPLE DO. And I'm sure it makes an impression on most people, including new people who take a look. When they see a low count, they think it's not a popular site. And non-noobs often take a look at the list of people on-site to see if anyone they know is on -- or, really, as per the standard that seems to be used on such sites, has been on in the last few hours. If this site uses a more restrictive standard, that puts the site at a disadvantage -- the "count" and the lists of people on-site are artificially low relative to similar sites.

If this is inapplicable because I'm not understanding what you mean, sorry!
But if I AM understanding it right, I think this is important.

[Ray]

I thought maybe that was what you meant. And I'm still not completely sure I really get it, but if I do, I think this HURTS the site.

Do you mean that the list (and therefore, more importantly, the COUNT) includes only people who are on-site AT THAT MOMENT? (Or very close to that.)
If so, that puts this site at a disadvantage relative to comparable sites -- it would mean that a lower "count" is shown, and that fewer names are listed as being on-site at any given time. We discussed this before, and the admins made some adjustment in the counting method to decrease the site's disadvantage. If I understand right, this puts us back to where we were before in this regard.

I know that some people have said they don't care about the "count" or who's on-site. BUT MANY PEOPLE DO. And I'm sure it makes an impression on most people, including new people who take a look. When they see a low count, they think it's not a popular site. And non-noobs often take a look at the list of people on-site to see if anyone they know is on -- or, really, as per the standard that seems to be used on such sites, has been on in the last few hours. If this site uses a more restrictive standard, that puts the site at a disadvantage -- the "count" and the lists of people on-site are artificially low relative to similar sites.

If this is inapplicable because I'm not understanding what you mean, sorry!
But if I AM understanding it right, I think this is important.

Done! I put it back to like we had it.

Thanks for the tip Latch.

[larchmont]

Thank you -- good work again!
I was thinking that for some reason maybe y'all wanted the count to be low. :donno:

[Ray]

asdfg Thank you -- good work again!
I was thinking that for some reason maybe y'all wanted the count to be low. :donno:
:slap: :nervous: :007:

[Whatchamacallit]

Thanks for the tip Latch.

Whoa, a hidden emotion in there somewhere? What are you REALLY trying to say to Larch? :nervous: :laugh:

J/K

[larchmont]

Been called worse. :D

Larchmont, who actually didn't notice that.

[Joker]

This is great stuff!!

Currently Active Users: 101 (22 members and 79 guests)

Lets get those guest's signed up, and posting ;)

[Ray]

Whoa, a hidden emotion in there somewhere? What are you REALLY trying to say to Larch? :nervous: :laugh:

J/K

not at all :jester: