Posted by Dr. Bob on January 22, 2003, at 20:51:29
In reply to Re: How do people decide which groups to join?, posted by OddipusRex on January 22, 2003, at 14:06:56
> wouldn't a self selected group of volunteers be more likely to be biased in favor of believing internet groups were useful?
I think so, yes...
> As for how people choose PB it would seem like the emphasis on meds would attract a group of people who were already diagnosed and probably on medication.
Or at least thinking about medication...
> There would probably be fewer posts from younger people who are wondering what is wrong with them.
I do already collect a little demographic information that includes age, for example:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/stats/20020715.html
But I haven't tried to relate that to how long people stay...
> There would probably be fewer people who were believers in "nurture" vs "nature" Google of course would multiply this effect by sending more and more people here from seaches for specific drugs. People looking for just general information or support have a lot more sites to choose from so probably would be fewer in number here.
You can get an idea of what searches lead people here from the overall site statistics, for example:
http://www.dr-bob.org/stats/usage_200301.html#TOPSEARCH
> You could do your reading level comparisons over time. Do the numbers become more similiar?
How stable a group measure is over time is important. Breaking it down by poster, I suppose you could look for a relationship between their reading (writing) level and how long they stay...
> You could simply count the initial subject of the first post. Was it specific request for information or request for support, etc. Are information seekers less likely to stay than support seekers?
Lots of times people are looking for both...
> You might also look into whether the number of initial interactions or replies influences people to stay. Do people who get more responses tend to stay longer than people who don't?
I've wondered about that. But what exactly would you count as a response? Posts "in reply to" that post? Or posts with that poster's name in the subject line? Or any later posts in that thread?
> Do people who reply frequently to others stay longer than people who only post about themselves?
Would that depend on whether a post was "in reply to" another post, or on its actual content? Content is a lot harder to assess...
> You could estimate level of personal disclosure. Do people who tell their life story feel more invested in the place and tend to stay longer?
That definitely would be a content issue...
> Are people who are warned to be civil more likely to leave permanently or are people who are more emotionally invested here more likely to make emotionally charged statements that cause them to be banned?
Only a tiny minority of posters get blocked, you know... And sometimes they're the same people. :-)
> But I guess you could measure support by number of responses and information by whether the specific question was addressed.
Number of responses is relatively straightforward, once you define "response", but whether something was addressed is harder...
> Bob do you get permission from the other groups you study or do you think because it's posted on the internet you don't need permission?
If only existing publicly available data are studied, research can be considered exempt from some of the usual requirements...
> In that case why do PBers need to sign consent forms?
Partly because I have access here to information that isn't publicly available. Also, I want to be able to use quotes. Also, even if I don't need to, it might be better to.
> One thing that interested me from your article was the idea of "super posters". You could try to define the term and follow the career of these super posters.
What about their "careers" do you think might be interesting?
Thanks for all the ideas!
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:8891
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8965.html