I think it can get by with half that. At least considering the number of replies I normally get (otherwise I'm in real trouble).





That's true - unfortunately, the problem is sites like Twitter and Facebook (and before that, to a lesser extent, Blogs). They say in Hollywood that everyone wants to be a star, and now they can be. People can post their thoughts, and their writings, and be in complete control of both the audience and the content. Message boards like this one require depending on an existing audience, and giving someone else control of the content.





This is part of the reason I wanted to change the way message boards work, and have threads "owned" by the poster and not the board - kind of how Facebook does things, except better aggregated and less separated. Anyone who's gone for months can look up The Hooded Hood's post and read everything they missed without using search or leafing through the board.





I feel like the opposite is happening - people will check the board only if they feel like they're missing something.

The reason people check Facebook 5, 10, 20 times a day is because they can post something and get immediate feedback. Or they check their friends there because someone is going to post something at least once a day.

Here, people will start out checking a few times a week. Then when nothing is posted, once a week. A weekend or two with nothing will cause a few to decide to check in every couple weeks, then maybe once a month. Eventually though, varying between a week or four of silence they'll decided the board's dead and never come back.

The ones we really can't do anything about are those who believe it's time they moved on to a new phase of life, or moved away from old technology (message boards) or follow their friends elsewhere, because they're going to leave no matter what. The object at this point is to prevent people from misinterpreting slowing down posting for the board being done.