I don't think the number of clicks DU gets in a day is very important. What is important ...

[Scuba]

... is the content.

Some discussion today about DU traffic volumes and comparisons with other sites. Seems like noise to me.

What is important, at least to me, is the quality of the posts and replies. Yes, there's click-bait, cat pictures and thinly-disguised right-wing memes to wade through. However, at least to this DU user there's still a wealth of excellent DU-original writings, and vetted links to other sources that I just don't seem to find anywhere else on the net.

There's also a minimum of vitriol, racism, sexism, name-calling and other bad behaviors. Thanks to the jury system and MIRT for this. Other sites I've tried are often unusable because of such crap.

I would think that traffic volumes will wax and wane over time. Unless we drop below some minimum participation I don't see this as an issue. If the original writings and other sharing of information were to dry up, I would consider that a major problem.

My two cents.

[Dont call me Shirley]

1. And a good .02 at that

[Fumesucker]

2. DU can also be a very funny place

I was wiping tears by the end of one of those Texas missing brain threads..

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I agree completely, my dear Scuba. Quality, not quantity, is what matters. n/t

[Scuba]

4. Perfect, Peggy! Thank you for boiling it down for me!

[H2O Man]

5. Recommended.

I've been here for over a decade now. There are a lot of intelligent, insightful, good-hearted people on this forum. I find it more interesting than any other internet site.

[Rex]

11. H2O man is one reason I hang around here.

There are some great posters here, I agree completely.

[FailureToCommunicate]

16. What Rex said.

DU folks (most of 'em)

[sabrina 1]

50. H2O Man is one of my reasons for being here also. And a few others.

You too Rex!

[Rex]

52. You are one of the best sabrina1.

I remember talking to you about so much abuse and hostility toward women here, it is depressing to see it is worse and years later. Thank you for never giving up the fight with self claiming "liberals" and their various RW bullshit narratives.

We won't ever stop talking about what is important to the nation. If they don't like it...they can go pound sand.

[CK_John]

6. The hate and the snark will drive this site out of business before the election if

the forum doesn't become more discussion and less hate.

[Scuba]

7. Interesting comment. I see very little hate here, but I do see lots of accusations of hate.

Can you point me to some posts you consider hateful? Understand if you don't track such things.

[Rex]

13. Agree totally, the word 'hate' is thrown around here with wild abandon.

Yet I don't really see it so much as the every day two or more cliques fighting with each other to try and one up the other group. IMO, that has less to do with 'hate' and more with trying to score points over the other guys.

[deaniac21]

14. Google (this site) for the word hate

About 337,000 results (0.24 seconds)

[Major Hogwash]

58. "We will serve no snark before it's time. Thank you for your support."

That's the kind of YouTube commercial I imagine Skinner and Earl making, complete with them both wearing Sundowner straw hats, suspenders, and sipping on mint juleps.

[Rex]

8. Scuba is one reason I hang around here.

As long as old timers are here and posting interesting topics (like they always do) I will be here reading and replying.

[Scuba]

9. Thanks, Rex, back atcha.

[BlueJazz]

10. "at least to this DU user there's still a wealth of excellent DU-original writings"

I see you have not read any of my posts.

[Scuba]

12. And humor!

[applegrove]

15. What is the time frame. Cause all the political websites lost numbers as the election approached.

GOP and democratic sites. Why? Political people volunteer with campaigns. So what time frame we talking about?

[NanceGreggs]

29. DU's numbers have been in decline ...

... since at least 2009, but it was a slow decline. Its HIGHs were a little lower each year, and its LOWs were a little lower as well. But the pattern was always consistent, in that DU's Alexa numbers stayed roughly within a 2000-point range over any given year.

That held true until the beginning of September of this year. DU was ranging between 8000 and 10,000 on Alexa, consistent with every other year in terms of fluctuation within roughly 2000 points.

However, as of the beginning of September, DU's numbers took a nosedive, going from just over 8000 points at the end of August to its current position at about 14,500 - and going down. I have looked at the Alexa stats for other political websites - they are all within the same range of fluctuation as they always have been; none of them have dropped almost 7,000 points during the lead-up to the election and its aftermath.

If volunteering with campaigns were a legit reason for this sudden decline, the same decline would have shown up in previous years. It didn't. And if working on campaigns was a legit reason, DU's numbers would have started climbing up again after the election was over - they haven't. And they are still going down.

[WillyT]

17. Yep... I've Said That This Site Is The Best "Clearing House" On The Web...

A lot of stuff gets posted here... and a lot of it is invaluable.



& Rec !!!

[Marie Marie]

25. ^^ This^^

Often, I find myself feeling like the smartest girl in the room and that is not a reflection of my intelligence. It reflects the wealth of information that I absorb from reading all the varied and interesting things that others share. For that, I thank all of you who take the time to post here on DU. And, a special thanks to all of the posters who have made me laugh on days when I really needed a good laugh. I would be lost without DU as I check in here every day - make that several times a day. You are my liberal community and if we sometimes disagree, well, then so be it - I just move on to the next item.

[WillyT]

26. :hug:

[Marie Marie]

32. Right back at ya WillyT...

[NRaleighLiberal]

18. k&r.

[Omaha Steve]

19. YA

What he said.

K&R!

[hrmjustin]

20. You are a great poster and make the site a better place.

[markpkessinger]

21. I'll add a hearty second to that! n/t

[JDPriestly]

22. The name of this site explains what it is: "Democratic Underground."

It is not mainstream.

This is where new ideas can be discussed with those who are interested enough to try to understand them.

I prefer the DU format to any other sites I have visited.

It isn't gimmicky. It's user-friendly even for those of us who are not computer-friendly.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

23. Word, still good stuff here but not like 10 years or so ago. nt

[scarletwoman]

24. You, Scuba, are very much part of what makes DU worthwhile.

As long as you, and a number of other wonderful DUers, are here and posting, DU will remain my cherished home on the 'net.

[TexasTowelie]

27. You have something against cat pictures?

I'd put you on ignore, but occasionally you do post something pawsitive.

[marked50]

28. Don't post much but....

have been here a long time (dates don't show the whole story) and have never, never left DU nor thought that it wasn't worth the time spent here. I get great insight and content and have not felt it waned in anyway, regardless of those who have complained and left. Plan on continuing.....

[NanceGreggs]

30. Like Spinal Tap ...

"Marty: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they're being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh...the popularity of the group is waning?

Ian: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective."

I guess DU's appeal is just becoming "more selective". Unfortunately, there is a "minimum participation" number that exists - the number at which the revenues from advertisers, which are based on traffic numbers, drop below what the Admins feel is worth their while in terms of compensation for the time they have to put in to keep the site up and running.

Obviously, I no longer care what happens here. But many posters still DO care. DU's waning numbers should be a wake-up call that leads to discussion about how to get traffic back up, how to attract more participation, how to keep posters engaged.

Instead, drawing attention to those declining numbers has prompted the usual finger-pointing - it's the fault of the Third Wayers, it's the fault of the purists, it's the fault of the centrists, it's the fault of everyone who disagrees with ME! - which has been the only discussion prompted by an unprecedented decline in DU's stats.

If you care about this site and its ability to survive, you might want to address what's driving people off DU, instead of pretending that the "audience is becoming more selective" meme will continue to float this particular boat.

[Scuba]

31. I'm not sure people are being "driven off" DU. There are a few who have left loudly ....

... but I have no evidence that there's any kind of exodus from DU.

Lower clicks may simply mean people are recommending fewer posts, or have stopped typing "+1" as often.

Offhand, I don't recall any of my favorite posters leaving DU except for a couple who have died.

[NanceGreggs]

33. The Alexa stats ...

... speak for themselves.

The decline in DU's numbers over the past three months has been unprecedented in DU's history. Alexa's stats are derived from visits to the site, time spent on the site, and page views per visit. They are ALL down since September - and drastically so.

If you have an explanation as to why DUers suddenly decided to spend less time here as of September, I'd be more than willing to hear it.

"Lower clicks may simply mean people are recommending fewer posts, or have stopped typing "+1" as often."

Any explanation as to why DUers decided to start rec'ing fewer posts, or stopped typing "+1" all at the same time, during the same twelve-week period?

The first step in dealing with a problem is to acknowledge that there IS a problem. It seems obvious that DU is not willing to acknowledge that a problem exists.

The fact that your "favourite posters" have not left the site is meaningless. The fact that the stats show that a lot of posters have left is what is germane - whether you "liked" them or not.

As I've said, what happens to DU in future is not my concern. But for those to whom it IS a concern, a bit of introspection might be in order as to why the site's numbers are in free fall, and what can be done to get those numbers back to a place where the site remains financially viable to those whose time and efforts keep it up and running.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

36. That's an awful lot of analysis for something you claim is "not my concern."

And according to this shared by MADem, Alexa is irrelevant:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5907396

Or, more simply stated by Recursion:

OMG. People actually take Alexa seriously?

Alexa is what you use to convince pointy-haired bosses of things, because they're the only ones who use it and think it's meaningful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5906613

[NanceGreggs]

41. Funny how Alexa was once touted here ...

... as proof that DU was a rising star on the Internetz - but became unreliable the minute DU's stats started falling.

So the non-lock-stepping DUers are now supposed to lock-step behind MADem and Recursion? I guess I didn't get the memo declaring either/both of them as the final word in all things political on DU.

[fadedrose]

47. +++++++++

You missed a few final worders....

[Major Hogwash]

56. Constantly, regularly, and loudly.

With a difiant tone of "how dare you question Alexa's stats" whenever they were posted here!

If Facebook would have been created back in 2001, there never would have been a need for DU to exist.
Social media is social media.
It is what it is.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

59. Do whatever the hell you want Nance.

Last edited Thu Dec 4, 2014, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

In one camp we have you gloating about DU's supposed demise based on Alexa rankings, and in another we have members suggesting Alexa is outdated and irrelevant. Perhaps in DU's earlier years, Alexa was a big deal. But based on the replies in that long, navel-gazing thread, I get the impression Alexa isn't an accurate measure and shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'd create an OP in ATA to ask Skinner, but unlike you, I truly don't care. Quality, not quantity.

[NanceGreggs]

72. Thank you for so amply demonstrating ...

... what is, IMHO, one of the biggest problems with DU these days.

It's the black-and-white group-think, where one's position on any issue is a matter of being at one extreme or the other.

I replied on two threads about DU's dwindling Alexa numbers - therefore, I am "gloating about DU's supposed demise". I was neither gloating nor dismissing the Alexa ratings out-of-hand. But the current group-think on DU dictates that if one doesn't accept one position, that automatically means they accept the exact opposite position.

I saw it happen with threads on Occupy. Those who stated that they didn't think Occupy was being effective were asked why they "hated" Occupy, and everything it stands for. They were labelled "water carriers for the 1%", "happy with the staus quo", and/or having an "I've got mine, so screw everyone else" mentality.

I saw it happen with threads about Snowden/Greenwald. People who expressed any distrust of either, or questioned their motives, were labelled as "NSA defenders", who were happy to have the NSA spying on all Americans.

Most recently, I saw it happen with threads about protestors interrupting traffic and/or shutting down mass transit. Anyone who pointed out that such actions were having an impact on people trying to get to jobs on time, job interviews on time, get home in time to pick up their kids from school or daycare, etc., were labelled as not caring about what happened in Ferguson, or what is happening all over the country with respect to police behaviour. (Ironically, many of the same posters who decried Christie's traffic jams on the GWB as presenting a danger to the citizenry due to emergency vehicles being tied-up, innocent commuters being kept from their jobs, medical appointments, etc, are the same posters who described recent protests doing the same thing as presenting a mere "inconvenience" to commuters.)

DU has become a "you're with us or against us" website. And there are no shades of grey permitted. If you express a belief that not ALL cops are thugs, you're siding with the cops who gun down innocent civilians. If you don't believe Snowden is a hero, you're in agreement with the NSA over-stepping its bounds. If you raise a single question about Darren Wilson's history of being bigoted or a racist, you are in agreement with cops shooting young black men without consequence.

DU once decried the idea of such black-and-white group-think when they saw it happening among Republicans. And now that same group-think is prevalent here. If you question A, it means you are in complete agreement with its opposite, being Z.

There are a million shades of grey between A and Z - but DU now, for the most part, neither acknowledges those shades, nor has any tolerance for those whose views fall in between those extremes.

The fact that you see my replies on a thread about DU's dwindling Alexa stats as "gloating" is a prime example of that group-think attitude. "You're either with us (i.e. you dismiss the Alexa numbers out-of-hand) or you're against us (you reply to an OP that states DU's numbers are dwindling)," There is NO in-between here. You're either with us or against us - and I have been around DU long enough to remember when that kind of attitude was only attributable to RWers who lacked the intelligence to recognize that there were positions to be taken that were neither A nor Z - but fell somewhere in between.

If you are more concerned with "quality over quantity" as per DU participation, that's your prerogative. But you might keep in mind that DU is a business, and the Admins aren't putting their time and effort into the site as a hobby. DU represents a financial return on investment, and when the financial return doesn't cover the cost of the time invested, DU will cease to be.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

75. Again, for someone who claims not to care about DU...

that is an awful lot of analysis. Why? Who has that kind of time on their hands? Reminds me of a couple of select groups who complain incessantly about this place, but never leave. Go... greener pastures! Do the malcontents think they're contributing in a positive manner? Or is everyone else the problem?

You claim the Alexa stats are significant; others do not. Maybe you're right, maybe they're right, maybe there is an in-between, so your group-think comparison is nonsense. And nice little swipe at my intelligence... I'm sure your (dwindling) fan club will be along in no time to high-five.

I've had enough of meta DU for one week, but knock yourself out...

[rug]

77. Indeed.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democratsforprogress.com

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/democraticunderground.com

[NanceGreggs]

80. Did you have a point? n/t

[rug]

81. The Alexa stats ...

... speak for themselves.

[NanceGreggs]

82. Yes, they do.

Your point being?

[rug]

83. You should spend more time worrying about DFP stats instead of DU's.

Especially for something that doesn't concern you.

[NanceGreggs]

85. Why should I worry ...

... about DFP's stats?

[rug]

86. Why should you worry ...

... about DU's stats?

It's not like you're a managing editor here.

And DFP's stats are appalling.

[NanceGreggs]

87. OMG ... and LOL!

Now I see where you were trying to go! You were all set for a game of "my website is bigger than your website"!

DFP was set up as a blog for writers of essays, OP/EDs, etc. The discussion board is just an additional feature for those who want to discuss current events, politics, etc. It was never meant to be a DU-type website.

DFP is run by people contributing their time and skills. It is not a business, and generates no income.

Given its purpose, DFP's stats are neither appalling nor fantastic - nor anything in between. They are simply irrelevant. The site is not dependent on viewership. If it has four viewers or four million, it doesn't impact the site's existence either way.

DU, on the other hand, is a business. And, as such, stats are important because viewership generates an income for the three Admins. Less viewers means less money.

And here's another bit of info for you - when someone posts a reply on a thread about DU's stats, that does not constitute being "worried" about said numbers. It's not my business, and it's not my livelihood. If DU folded tomorrow, it would be of no consequence to me whatsoever.

[rug]

92. DFP's stats are as irrelevant as the website.

OMG ... and LOL!

And here's some googley eyes for good measure.



Don't forget to reply with all the reasons why you don't care.

[NanceGreggs]

93. I would think that all the reasons ...

... I don't care are obvious, and require no recitation nor explanation.

[rug]

94. That's never stopped you before.

[NanceGreggs]

95. Ever play peek-a-boo with a child ...

... only to realize that he's more than willing to play for hours, while you're bored to death by the game after just a few minutes?

I'm kinda feeling that way about now ...

[rug]

96. I feel that way about whack-a-mole.

[2banon]

62. To your point Scuba, I think the use of "ignore" and "trash thread" might impact "participation" ?

I have quite a number of posters on ignore, reducing chances of flame wars or wasting my time on sycophantic cheer leading drivel. (Blue Links anyone?)

I don't know of course, but I suspect a number of other posters maybe doing this as well on a scale I do if not more than I do. I also utilize the "trash thread" liberally for generally the same purpose.

I'm thinking this might impact/skew the stats.

But as to your point in your OP, you're spot on.

[WillyT]

34. Ya Know... It's Funny... Although You And I Disagree On Many Things, I've Always Valued Your Posts

And that is the genius of this place... we argue... it's a discussion board...

You've posted some powerful pieces here...

And I wouldn't attempt to censor them in any way.

But... we are also arguing about the future of our party, and if anyone in power gives a damn to that argument.

I will continue to do so, and so will you.

The most useless Democratic Website would be one that just regurgitates the dictum's of the party leaders.

[NanceGreggs]

37. And I would argue ...

... that the most useless Democratic website is the one that spews anti-Democratic memes 24/7, day in/day out ...

... a "Democratic website" that welcomes posts that state "both parties are the same", a site that greets every move forward of a progressive agenda as "too little, too late", "not enough", or "a crumb thrown to the liberals", a site that is full of posters who are "more politically informed than the average citizen" who are incredibly ill-informed as to how the government actually works, a site where the most prolific and "rec'd" posters are those who post non-stop about the failings of Democrats - but, at the same time, never, ever, EVER have anything negative to say about Republicans - a site where group-think is revered and any divergence from what the "group thinks" is unacceptable, a site where RW talking points are regurgitated ad nauseam, a site where black-and-white thinking prevails and absolutely NO shades of gray exist on ANY issue, a site where being a Democrat is not sufficient - one has to be the "right" kind of Democrat, with the "right" kind of opinions, the "right" kind of mindset, the "right" kind of thinking.

When I joined DU, we were all Democrats. Now one has to be the "right" kind of Democrat - not a centrist, not a moderate, not a left-leaner, not a middle-of-the-roader, not a Dem who is conservative on some issues but wildly liberal on others, not a Dem who thinks compromise isn't a dirty word, not a Dem who thinks Warren and/or Sanders can't win a presidential election in view of the facts, not a Dem who doesn't think Snowden/Greenwald are the best thing since sliced bread, not a Dem who isn't running around with their hair on fire every time Obama opens his mouth, not a Dem who doesn't believe that the NSA is reading all of their emails, not a Dem who doesn't think the PTB (as yet to be identified) are running things and have decided who will win elected office long before elections are even held.

DU was once reflective of Democrats. As has been proven over the past few years, DU is no longer reflective of Democrats - at all. While surveys/polls have shown that self-identified liberal/progressive Democrats give Obama high favourability ratings, DU continues to insist that IT is the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to what Democrats are thinking. And DU's declining numbers are reflective of the fact that the whiners/complainers are the minority of the party.

Now you can continue to convince yourself that DU's falling numbers are a matter of "more selective" Democratic posters participating here as a good thing. But the truth is that a "Democratic" site that no longer reflects the thinking of Democrats is no longer viable as a "Democratic" site.

[WillyT]

40. First Of All... DU Was Created After Al Gore Lost, And GW Was Crowned..

So we started off with a common enemy.

During the 2008 Clinton/Obama fights... things changed.

And now we have the upcoming 2016 Elections...

And we have a party at war with itself...

IOW... Some... are willing to do what it takes to win... others... not so much.

[NanceGreggs]

42. Again we agree ...

... perhaps inadvertently.

Some are willing to do what it takes to win - and others don't believe "winning" is as important as "standing by one's principles" and NOT voting, voting Third Party, writing-in votes for those who will never win, et cetera.

Constituents can pressure an elected representative to see things their way. The guy/gal who WASN'T elected can't be coerced into doing anything.

[joshcryer]

55. Al Gore didn't lose.

The Democratic Party is not "at war with itself."

[Rex]

88. He sure didn't. I wish people would stop saying that.

He won the election, but did not win the presidency according to the SCOTUS and their timeline.

[2banon]

65. Who are you calling "Whiners and Complainers" ?

Has it ever occurred to you that evolution of thought just might be in play?

That it has become more and more apparent that traditional causes and principles the party used to stand and fight for are given some lip service to at times when pressed or during campaigns, but ignored or dismissed as "too leftist" when the opportunity to take action is at hand?

That issues we championed or fought against during Bush/Cheney years weren't just about the fact that rethugs were in power, but were based on PRINCIPLES we hold dear and value, regardless?

That it has become obvious with every passing year that toting the party line no matter how obviously corrupt it is no longer considered acceptable, desirable, intelligent or tolerable?

You might describe resulting discussions as whining and complaining, but I'd call it critical thinking and ATTEMPT to muddle our way towards some sort of unifying force to reject corruption and reclaim our democracy.. IF the party sees the way clear toward that end, great!

But if not... all bets are off. you can keep thinking that's nothing more than "whining and complaining" but you would be wrong.

[Mojorabbit]

68. +1000 nt

[druidity33]

66. Wow...

i actually pictured you frothing at the mouth while writing that. I swear it seems like you were gleeful at the prospect of DU somehow failing. I liked your rants back in the day Nance, but lately it seems like you come here just to criticize the participants here at DU... what's up?

What are we doing "wrong" in your eyes? What is your definition of a Democrat? It seems like you're accusing the majority of DU of not being one...

[NanceGreggs]

71. Whether you picture me ...

... "frothing at the mouth" is irrelevant - and couldn't be farther from the truth.

I seem "gleeful at the prospect of DU somehow failing"? Again, your perception has no basis in fact.

I don't come here to "criticize" participants - I sometimes come here to reply to anti-Dem/anti-Obama posts. I believe I have a right to do so.

"What is your definition of a Democrat? It seems like you're accusing the majority of DU of not being one... "

That last statement is particularly ironic on a site whose participants are constantly defining what a "Democrat" is - and guess what? For a lot of posters here, a "Democrat" is anyone who agrees with them 100%.

How many Democrats on this site are regularly labelled as Third Wayers, Conservadems, DINOs, etc? How many Democrats on this site have been told they are not "real Dems" if they are centrists or moderates? One rather prolific poster here actually labeled anyone who doesn't post in threads on certain topics as being "not really Democrats".

What are you doing wrong in my eyes? It doesn't matter what I think. DU's numbers are dropping, and maybe a little introspection into why that is happening might be in order for those who want to keep the site viable.

DU's viability is not of great concern to me - but to those to whom it IS a concern, a civil conversation on the topic could go a long way in turning that trend around.



I'm not the one labeling others as being

[WorseBeforeBetter]

79. DU's "whiners/complainers" vote.

Perhaps your time would have been better spent getting the Obama-approving, non-voting Democrats motivated and to the polls, rather than castigating members who enjoy this site, warts and all. And don't blame low midterm turnout on DU. Seriously, don't.

Start your own site. Or have you already? Aren't you affiliated with Democrats for Progress? (Speaking of low, or in this case, non-existent Alexa rankings...)

And anyone who uses "hair on fire" to describe criticism of Obama's policies is not to be taken seriously. That sort of thing *just* might turn off potential members, especially those looking for thoughtful discussion, rather than childish, idiotic Spandan-isms.

[2banon]

63. Loved her posts during "dumbya's" reign of tyranny.

obviously professional, but thought they were outstanding and really enjoyed reading them....

that was then.

[Union Scribe]

35. "I no longer care what happens here"

which is totally evident from your constant meta posts about what happens here

[WorseBeforeBetter]

38. I've never seen so much not caring.

[joshcryer]

39. I don't see an attempt to solve the apparent issue.

So no, apparently she doesn't care about what happens here.

[NanceGreggs]

44. I clearly stated ...

... that I don't care what happens here. And, as a direct result of that aforementioned lack of caring, I did not "attempt to solve the apparent issue."

If YOU care what happens to this site, it's up to YOU to "solve the apparent issue", not me.

[KMOD]

45. I'm gonna step probably way out of bounds here,

But wtf are you doing posting on a site your don't care about?

Before I joined, I read here for years. I think I enjoyed many of your posts.

I don't understand this crap though.

Basically you are saying. "I don't like it here, anymore, I'm done, but you should fix it, and until you do, I will hate it. And if you don't fix it, well, I'll pop in and complain from time to time."

[fadedrose]

48. She is meloncholy

about the demise of DU the way it was and how it's become like a tight girdle.

[joshcryer]

54. I was defending you.

I don't care one way or another, I actually do come here to talk to the long timers, there are some of us who aren't going away no matter how much people want us to.

I really look forward to Hillary Clinton's candidacy, for example.

[NanceGreggs]

43. Yes, it is evident from my posts.

Or should be to anyone who reads them.

Did you somehow think I was saying something different?

And, as I have also said today, those who still DO care about what happens here should start having some serious discussions about what has gone wrong, and how it can be made right.

There was a time when this site was "home" to me. And if I saw DU's numbers nosediving then, I wouldn't be wasting time arguing about whose posts were "meta" or not - I'd be discussing what could be done to reverse the trend of numbers going down instead of up.

But there are different agendas at play now, aren't there? And certain discussions are deemed to be not worth having.

[KMOD]

46. My ugh. Look Nance, you are a very creative

writer. Put your effort into that, instead of this tit for tat whatever.

I would love to read one of your classic posts, instead of this nonsense.

You're better than this, no? Give us something to applaud, not cringe.

[fadedrose]

49. Nance's writing is still good

maybe better than it was....

Your viewpoints are different. Hers are the same as they were, but I am not familiar with yours.

I hope Nance doesn't leave. I don't come in more than a few times a week, maybe when the news makes me yearn for people with like opinions...and it's a treat to see one of her posts on page 1, I hardly ever get to page 2..

so maybe that's why to me it seems there are fewer of them..

[KMOD]

51. If you are not familiar with my viewpoints, how do you know they are different?

I used to love reading opinion pieces here. I might not always agree, but I always appreciated the effort.

[fadedrose]

53. I don't know your viewpoints

but what Nance has been saying is not "nonsense." A lot of DU'ers share her viewpoints, more or less about progressives. Not so much freedom. A lot of beating around the bush about what you really want to say, or else get flamed in unison by a tribe of single-thought posters.

[KMOD]

57. Hey, that's fair enough

and you're right, nonsense was probably the wrong term to use. I apologize for that.

But it is frustrating to see Du broken down into basically three groups.

Group 1 - Elizabeth Warren

Group 2 - Hillary Clinton

Group 3 - My god, can't we wait until someone declares, before we rip them all apart?

Just saying.

[NanceGreggs]

73. I am incapable of giving DU ...

... in its present state, something to applaud, not cringe at.

That's because I support a Democratic president who has made incredible strides towards equality for women, equality for minorities, equality for the LBGTers among us, and has brought the country closer to the idea of universal healthcare being not only better overall, but financially viable.

I support the idea that a Democrat in office is better than a Republican in office, and whether that Democrat passes the DU "purity test" or not is of little consequence.

I support the idea that Democrats come in all shapes and sizes - and a centrist Democrat, a moderate Democrat, a middle-of-the-road Democrat is just as much a "Democrat" as a far-leftist Democrat.

I support the idea that sitting out elections, or voting for third party candidates or write-in candidates does absolutely nothing to further liberal/progressive goals.

I support the idea that Republicans should not wind up being elected because some voters' "principles" are more important than ensuring that Republicans don't hold office. And I wonder what Democratic "principles" are served by not voting for Democrats whose "principles" are not 100% in accordance with certain alleged "Democrats" on this site.

I support the idea that criticism of Democrats in office is not only acceptable, but obligatory. But when certain posters find everything wrong with Democrats, and never, ever express anything wrong with Republicans, I find those posters suspect.

I support the idea of Democrats discussing what can be done to accomplish our common goals. I DO NOT support alleged Democrats who DO NOTHING but bitch about what's wrong with Democrats, without ever offering a positive, do-able alternative to what is already being done.

So consider this one of my "classic posts" - and then tell me how well received such a post would be on DU in its current configuration.

[KMOD]

74. Classic, indeed.

In fact, I wish you would make this an OP.

I cannot imagine how anyone could find fault in this post, although I'm aware that a few might.

I believe your thoughts in this post, represent the thoughts of many on this board. It's just that not everyone is comfortable in vocalizing their views, especially with the turmoil and name calling.

[Rex]

89. As a yellowdog, I approve of this reply.

I guess yellowdogs are a dying breed of voter. I would vote for a garbage can that was rusty and about to fall apart before I would vote for any republican.

[NanceGreggs]

90. And I can think of at least a few dozen Republians ...

... currently in office who are less intelligent than your average falling-apart, rusty garbage can.

[Rex]

91. A few dozen? Nance you are being very, very generous.

Do you feel the same way? The yellowdog is a dying breed and now we have people that vote on single issues only? Which kills us since the GOP will always vote for their party no matter what their leaders say or do. They just vote, don't need to have a pet issue. I think we see the few that do - go for the rabid Tea Party line. Which still votes in the R column.

It is so dam hard to get our party into solidarity mode to vote...but on certain issues they are all together as one. Got to move away from single issue voters or we are all going to live under GOP rule forever.

imo.

[NanceGreggs]

97. Yes, I was being overly generous ...

If only rusty old garbage cans were not barred from pre-election debates, Michele Bachman would be flipping burgers, and Paul Ryan would be selling used cars. Sadly, they were elected instead, never having been forced to match wits with refuse containers.

I can honestly say that I've never met a one-issue Democratic voter. I'm not saying they don't exist; I've just never come across one - for which I am eternally grateful. It is such a self-defeating idea, IMHO. How can anyone with a brain think that a Republican who disagrees with them on ALL of the issues is better than electing a Dem - who will at least agree with them on MOST of the issues?

There are some Dems - very few, but some - who I find to be smarmy, self-serving and less than ideal. But put up against ANY Republican, those less-than-ideal Dems look like towering heroes in comparison to their GOP counterparts.

Party first, Party foremost, Party always. Given the alternative, the choice couldn't possibly be more crystal clear.

(BTW, very nice chatting with you!)

[Rex]

98. Getting unfocused on the main cause of a party or losing to apathy can be stopped.

I do believe in leaders. Heroes...not so much. Growing up there were many Reagan Democrats that were single issue. I think we might of run into some of them in Missouri. However by the time the GOP rolls around their latest con man the majority will get behind Hillary Clinton. IMNSHO.

We need to focus on parts of the party that should have left a long time ago. If Dixiecrats are still lingering, I would guess they would also be libertarian. I'm old enough to remember dealing with liberal republicans growing up. Those are your Paul supporters imo. Nobody should want that loon in office. It is back to writing in rusty can if I had no choice. We got 3 choices imo.

I get yelled at for saying who I think is going to win around here but I don't fucking care someone will either tsk me or guess who is going to win too. Good conversations.

I was wrong about the midterms. I was right about Obama both times although I said Hillary would beat him the first run term. I thought she had more national recognition.

We got this, they need to fix gerrymandering and election laws. Little fiefdoms are stupid, I grew up in Houston which was conservative bullshit central in the 1980s. Watched republicans saying one thing in the day time and another at night. Going to church on Sunday. Worshiping Reagan...and trashing Jimmy Carter. Not bashing, TRASHING.

My yellodog grandmother would come visit and she would curse at (ABC) Reagan and Kissinger on TV. Great education from a smart lady. She knew her history on the GOP which is why I use the term the most.

LOL look at me rambling, have a good night.

[Mojorabbit]

67. I don't understand

If "Obviously, I no longer care what happens here. " is true then why are you here discussing the rating drop? I cherish this site. I have checked in daily or more for the past decade. I care what happens here.

[NanceGreggs]

70. I replied to someone else's OP ...

... about the ratings drop. I think that's still allowed here.

For those who do care what happens here, like yourself, a little introspection into why the site's numbers are dropping could actually turn those numbers around. But as you can see from the replies on that thread, and the others on the same topic, everyone is sure it's "the other guy's fault".

No, I don't care what happens here. But for those who do care, those numbers could serve as a wake-up call prompting a concerted effort to be more civil, to stop labeling those who disagree with them as Third Wayers, etc., or insisting that centrist Dems or moderate Dems are "lesser Dems" than others.

I would love to see DU go back to what it once was - civil discussion among Democrats about the issues of the day, and the challenges that lay ahead. Everyone here claims to have lofty goals, and a strong desire to see Democratic initiatives achieved. And yet reining-in their personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with their ideas as to how those goals can best be accomplished seems to be more of an effort that many are willing to make.

DU's numbers are dropping - and pointing the finger at everyone else does absolutely nothing to reverse that trend. If you really care, start a conversation about what's wrong, and how to make it right. It's up to people like yourself to get that ball rolling. DU needs to change in order to keep its current posters, and attract new blood to the site. That change isn't going to happen by itself.

[Iggo]

60. Me neither.

But it ain't paying for my kid's college.

[2banon]

61. Your 2 Cents is spot on point and matters to me Scuba!

[HereSince1628]

64. Doesn't the site support itself based on how advertising sells?

Isn't advertising revenue related to user traffic associated with clicks per day?

[Autumn]

69. Recommended , your two cent OP tops all the other

[olddots]

76. your two cents is worth alot more than two cents

[Tsiyu]

84. A lot of sites have reduced traffic

http://moz.com/google-algorithm-change


google has been tweaking their algorithms quite a bit recently.