| Author | Post |
|---|
alchemyd
Administrator
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 09:11 am |
|
There are only a small number of registered members of this discussion forum, however, it is open to the wider internet alchemical community to read the postings. Here is a chart of the latest statistics. It shows that the postings are being read widely and attests to the success of this method of serious scholarly discussion.
Attached Image (viewed 405 times):
 Last edited on Tue Feb 24th, 2009 08:25 pm by alchemyd
|
Paul Ferguson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 475 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 24th, 2010 02:01 pm |
|
Do you have some recent figures?
Paul
|
alchemyd
Administrator
|
Posted: Mon May 24th, 2010 02:17 pm |
|
Here are more up to date statistics:
Attached Image (viewed 96 times):
 Last edited on Mon May 24th, 2010 02:20 pm by alchemyd
|
Alexander Guthrie Stewart
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 47 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 24th, 2010 09:29 pm |
|
How do you find it compares to the e-mail discussion list you used to run?
I imagine it is easier one some ways, not having to check your inbox every day, but I wonder if you're getting the same number of people through here? Although of course numbers isn't so important, but as long as people are finding it a useful resource that is all right.
|
adammclean
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 370 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 24th, 2010 10:01 pm |
|
Alexander Guthrie Stewart wrote: How do you find it compares to the e-mail discussion list you used to run?
The previous email discussion groups I organised on alchemy all degenerated into nonsense. It is a nightmare trying to deal with belief driven Jungians and esotericists.
This incarnation of the alchemy discussion group has been consistently of a high standard and everyone is courteous to one another. If one searches the internet one can easily find other discussion groups on alchemy. These are full of posturing and nonsense as to be completely worthless.
I wonder if you're getting the same number of people through here? Although of course numbers isn't so important
I have not tried to promote the discussion group and increase the numbers of subscribers, as I know this would lead to problematic individuals joining. I know many of these people from before and they get very annoyed if you refuse them access. There are many manipulative people, in present day alchemy, driven by strange agendas, who eventually drive all the sensible people away. Indeed they usually target the major contributors, as they want to become the "leader of the pack", as they see it.
I have personally asked a number of scholars to join the group, but they never do. I can only suppose their reluctance arises from the fact that they may have had bad experiences on discussion groups in the past, or they may be reluctant to post something that may prove incorrect and then they might feel they have damaged their scholarly reputation. It is probably easier for scholars merely to write articles, as they don't then find their ideas or research picked about in a public space. I also insist on people using their real names, and this stops some people from joining. It does, however, make people feel responsible for what they post, as they cannot hide behind some silly pseudonym.
This discussion group IS a considerable success. To see this just look at the bottom line. There have been nearly 900,000 page views over the period of two years. Consider a printed scholarly journal such as Cauda Pavonis. In the ten years of its publication have over 90,000 people even glanced at one of its pages ? I think not.
Last edited on Tue May 25th, 2010 12:00 pm by adammclean
|
Current time is 02:31 am | |
|