Topic: Bitcointalk.org did it into the big cryptomedia today.... (Read 856 times)

That's nonsense data, an estimate from a Web analytics company based on who-knows-what.

The real data shows for example:
 - Late February 2018: ~3.51 million total ad impressions per day
 - Early January 2019: ~3.44 million total ad impressions per day
 - Late February 2019: ~3.41 million total ad impressions per day

Also, how accurate are these statistics? Aren't they just estimates?
Only Theymos can provide us with accurate visitor stats of Bitcointalk.

They do a shitty job in general, which is why I don't watch TV or even keep up with the world.  I find that I can function just fine without keeping abreast of world news.  On the other hand, crypto news does interest me but based on this article and others I've seen from CCN, I don't think that organization is reputable.  They obviously have some bias (which I happen to agree with, but it's bias nonetheless), and that's a huge red flag in my eyes.

The info in that article does make sense, though.  People aren't going to be as enthusiastic about an asset that's not doing much of anything other than existing at a price that's much lower than what it was at the end of 2017.  It shouldn't be surprising that google searches have dropped drastically if the mainstream media isn't reporting on bitcoin as much, but that doesn't worry me.  I've been into crypto long enough to know that lulls like this don't last forever, and that bitcoin will eventually start to move.

The question in my mind as I read this was what does this mean for all of these signature campaigns and bounties that rely on eyeballs?  Decreased traffic seems to imply that fewer people are going to be seeing all of this advertising, so I'm wondering if campaigns and bounties are headed toward oblivion.  

i think user number is advanced to price movement, so its a good indicator

Unfortunately, your reality is from a parallel universe.

well i help you by confronting you with reality,

Can't you just leave if you think the forum sucks and it's slowly dying? No one really asked for your opinion. Everybody knows that you are just butthurt that you got tagged for merit abusing. Stop wasting your time here.

well jes keep doing that with everyone that confronts you with issues, and you all will end up like a bunch of ghouls that lost connection to reality.

Yes we all know this Troll !

Everytime i read something of some posts or in some threads he created i just asking myself , why is he here ?

Because the most time he is against Bitcoin and says that it will be die and and and ......  !

Waste of time to discuss about with him and maybe he gets on my Ignore list !

if the community of bitcoin talk keeps drying down, it wont be good for Bitcoin Either.

Agreed with you, @DdmrDdmr.
There are my time series plots, which support your stance above.

And this one

Looking at the chart on the referenced post, the 1 merit for Jr. Members introduced in mid September 2018 did not seem to alter the trend at all (number of posts per month), but rather continued its downward pattern, which, as expected, is in consonance to market (see for example chart comparison on re: Bitcointalk is Dying?).
< ... >
The way I see it, Bitcointalk seems to be rather aligned to how Bitcoin/cypto is behaving currently. That is natural and rather much unavoidable.

ABSTRACT
(1) 50% of observed months have intra-month registered account range from 2311 to 27790 (the interquartile range);
(2) 50% of observed months have intra-month registered account above or below 10432 (the median);
(3) The intra-month registered account fell 91.6% from its all time high in 2017 at 238400 to 20046; whilst the bitcoin decreased nearly 83.9%.
(4) The demotion on Junior Members in September 2018 probably caused intra-month registered accounts fell considerbaly later months.
(5) The difference in means of before and after periods (cut-off timepoint is Sept. 2018) is -63.6%.

---

Time-series plot

But I agree that they are not the only ones with low quality "news".

<…> so why these huge continuous loses then? <…>   

<...> The number of created post per month is dropping to similar numbers as those around the first half of 2017. There is an obvious correlation to crypto hype and value variance, and the numbers are interpretable according to one’s perspective. For a person signed-up during early 2018, things are really quiet now. For a person who signed-up in 2016 or before mid 2017, numbers seem to be training back to those days. <…>

That's what Mr. President D. J. Trump called fake news.
Blame it on fake news.
Not only CCN, but also the cointelegraph.com turned to be low quality crypto news site recent months, since the second half of 2018.

Those who won’t buy bitcoin again until they hear about it in Time Magazine will likely miss gains.

Blame CCN for low quality news meant only for some extra views.

i think user number is advanced to price movement, so its a good indicator

Google trends can be used as an indicator on multiple fields, although some studies have met poor results for its use as a predictor.For example s Google Trends a reliable tool for digital epidemiology? Insights from different clinical settings) concludes that:

"Taken together, the results of our study confirm that Google Trends has very modest reliability for delineating the true population epidemiology of relatively common diseases with poor media coverage or rarer diseases with large audience. Overall, Google Trends seems to be more influenced by media clamor than by the true epidemiological impact of disease, at least in the diseases examined here. Therefore, the real scientific usefulness of the so called "digital epidemiology" remains questionable, at least when using Google Trends."

We could of course find examples in favour and against, and although it certainly does have some appeal, one needs to be extra careful when interpreting the results:

On the one hand we need to understand how those charts are created. The charts set as the 100 threshold score the value where the search pattern is highest in relation to the searches performed in that same timeframe and geographical scope studied. All other readings on the chart are then relativizes to that maximum.

Say for example on day X the Bitcoin search term was sough 100K times out of 10M search searches, then the ratio for that day would be of 1%. If that was the maximum ratio for each date in the chart’s window, then that would be peak of the chart, and be set as base 100. Now if on another day there were 120K searches for Bitcoin, but the total amount of searches was of 16M, then the ratio would be of 0,75%, which is lower than the peak. Is it really lower? Well it is in relative search terms, but not in absolute search terms, where it is up by 20% that will not show on those relative charts.

Another factor to consider is sentiment: the charts ponder the number of searches for the term, but do not give it a context. I.e. Bitcoin could be suffering a severe crash and the number of searched on the engine related to Bitcoin will rise greatly, but the rise in the chart is counterproductive if interpreted alone without a context.