Lonelygirl15

[trip0125]

I'm sure they will be. I can't wait to see what you guys come up with.

[trunbuns]

Yeah thank for trying Creators, like I say I'm not upset at admin or anything I'm just upset because I got therre really early and was then told by mods that we were going to use userplane and that we were in the right place and that Bree would be along in a minute... which was not the case. I just feel that they should have been in room 1 because the people who were there early so as to be assured to be involved were there and we were the people left with nothing but about 3 lines of out of context dialouge to go on This was unfair

anyway I can't wait for the next one which will be much better I'm sure.

A few ideas:

1.As some have mentioned have some kind of question submission so the best questions get asked, and we dont have a 1000 people asking bree too perform sexual acts on them

2.Make people register with the site to get into the chat this will help avoid the above mentioned situation, and give a bump to the numbers of registered users.

3. Don't anounce the chat in a video do it on the site or in the forums. that way real users of the site will have more chance of being involved, and you won't have 13 yr olds saying 'lets go to that bree chat and shout 'fake' at her'.

4. Most importantly (and this will obviuosly occur), give yourself more time! I got the impression some of the admin were a bit pissed at not getting enough time to prepare and many of them were really stressed out, and upset that they had misinformed people (I have to say thanks to the admin because I feel that they tried thier best, and the ones that I managed to get a response from through the torrent of posts were genuinely sorry)

Seriously I have to say thanks guys for trying, and moreover thanks for providing me with this great series and site. This is by far my most used and most loved site. It's the first thing I check in the morning before breakfast and the last thing I check at night before I go to bed (which often ends up being four hours later than planned, like tonight) I have also got to complement you on the demographic the series seems to attract (to the forums at any rate). Everone is generally nice and the videos seem to provoke, in the most part, intelligent discussion (although I have to say, and I think I speak for a lot of the forum here, we need more mysterious clues to research!).

anyway thanks for the series and the interactivity that has allowed all of us to feel somewhat part of this thing you're creating, and heres hoping the chat goes better next time!...and that i get a chance to be involved

[JayHank]

I was disappointed to see Greg Goodfried quoted in an advertising Web site, ClickZ news, saying that the chat received 350,000 visitors.

Here's the article: ClickZ News

It was pointed out numerous times in this thread and other places that this number was not even remotely accurate. The site did not have 350,000 unique visitors. The video in which the chat was announced had not even been viewed 1/3 that many times -- there was no way 350,000 people knew.

And yet although this number was exposed as inaccurate it was nevertheless presented as part of an advertising pitch? I hope that this sort of distortion is not deliberate.

There's a Web site called Alexa that tracks traffic at Web sites. Alexa exposes how inaccurate the 350,000 figure is.

Alexa rankings for lonelygirl15.com

Alexa reveals the truth -- that the amount of traffic at the site the day of Breechat was not even double the typical traffic -- and not even close to 350,000 people.
_________________
"NO BREE DON'T PRESS THAT BUTTON" yelled Daniel.
"why?" Bree said, click.
WOOOOOO NUVCLEAR EXPLOSION!!!!EVEYRONE

[trip0125]

JayHank,

Get off it. Its over. Things will be better next time.

[Languorous Lass]

trip0125, you're missing JayHank's point. S/he's not complaining about the chat experience -- s/he's pointing out that Greg Goodfried is disseminating inaccurate information about the numbers of people who participated, or tried to participate, in the chat.

JayHawk, from what I understand, the number that Greg quoted is an accurate representation of the number of page refreshes that took place during the chat. Would the numbers shown on Alexa take those page refreshes into account?

[trip0125]

Languorous Lass, Thats exactly what I was saying. (If you read what i said 4 or 5 posts ago) "Whether they actually had 350,000 individual people loading or if it was a few hundred reloading doesnt matter. To a server, 350,000 loads is 350,000 loads. It still has to put out enough effort for 350,000 loads."

But now I'm saying move on. Its history now. We can only wait and see how the next one goes. No sence dragging it on anymore.

[Languorous Lass]

No, you're not getting my point. What Greg Goodfried is saying in the article JayHank quoted is that the site got 350,000 "visitors" -- implying unique visitors.

Based on what we know about the chat, there is no way that the claim Greg is making is accurate. Therefore, Greg is over-hyping the number of eyes that LG15 can deliver to advertisers. This is an entirely separate issue from the number of refreshes the LG15 chat server could handle.

The question I was raising to JayHank -- which your response did not address -- had to do with what is represented by the numbers Alexa reports. I still would like an answer to that question.

I myself have told people in other threads who were complaining about the chat experience to move on. JayHank isn't complaining about the chat experience. S/he's complaining about what Greg is saying about the chat, and the issues that s/he is raising are serious ones. Therefore, telling us to "move on" from this issue is missing those issues entirely.

[trainer101]

[Languorous Lass]

Thanks for the info, trainer. And BTW, congratulations on becoming a mod! I must have missed the announcement . . .

[trainer101]

[chicky88]

[iamcool]

[Flautapantera]

[The Creators]

That is the "official" transcript based on the hard work by the moderators. The next chat will be much more organized. Thanks for your feedback to help improve it.

[milowent]