BIRTHDAYS TODAY AND EVERYDAY 22 DECEMBER, 2013 TO 21 JANUARY 2014 . IUOMA's 'REAL' MEMBERSHIP

[Valentine Mark Herman]

I have been 'monitoring' those IUOMA members whose Birthdays have appeared on the 'Birthdays Today' part of this site. I started this, because I did not recognise many of their names, and wondered if they were indeed active members of IUOMA?

This led me to try and define what an 'Active Member' was, and to see how many of those whose birthdays were listed are indeed active.

I found that about 1 in 5 of them were active, and extrapolated from this that the Active Membership of IUOMA (based on the starting figure of 3263 Members on 22 December, 2013, was, at the end of the month's analysis, about 630.

The daily statistics for the month long period are below. (As are the methodological and statistical shortcomings, of which I am only too well aware.)
Mark Twain wrote that there are 'Lies, damned lies, and statistics', and you can read whatever you like into my statistics (and lies!).

I draw the following conclusions from them:

i) about 20% of IUOMA's Members are 'Active' as I have defined it.

ii) the remaining 80% may or may not be active Mail Artists outside the IUOMA network

iii) at one time this 80% were active IUOMA Mail Artists --that's why they joined (but see vii) below!)

iv) it is not necessary to be in any network to be a Mail Artist (well, I suppose you have to have at least one other person in your network to send Mail Art too!)

v) within IUOMA, a small number of people are responsible for a large amount of activity. They are the 'Super Actives'.

vi) as to the rest of us, well, we have different levels of Mail Art activity. I see it a bit like a love affair: start enthusiastically and with great passion, but then what you do and how vigorously you do it sort of tails off over time, and eventually you just get to live with your Mail Art personage.

vii) many IUOMA Mail Artists have been and gone, and, I trust, are still Mail Arting. As Mail Art is supposed to be enjoyable, and it certainly is for me, I would like to dedicate this whole Blog to one of our number who you have probably never heard of, but whose approach to Mail Art somehow seems to encapsulate what it is all about: fun. This is Deletemeplease's profile:

Deletmeplease's Page

Profile Information

Mail-Artist since:

never

My Website:

http://deleteme.com

Why I am involved in Mail-Art:

i'm not

My Mail-Adress (snail and/or E-mail)

[e-mail]

She bcame a member of IUOMA, joined one Group, but never posted a message, photo, or blog, or joined a discussion, and has not been heard of or from since.

Vive Mme Deletemeplease!

Here is the detailed analysis...

 

I always look at the 'Birthdays Today' part of this web-site. Do you?

Many of the names I do not recognise, so I look at their pages, and what do I find?

Simply, that many of them are inactive in IUOMA -- they don't post any messages, they don't receive any messages, they haven't been heard from for a long time, they don't join Groups, they don't have Friends, they don't post Photos, etc.

Indeed some Members just seem to join, get welcomed from a few of us, and then...poof! .... they vanish.

They -- and indeed some of the Members of IUOMA from way back in time -- might in fact be dead. (I don't suppose that they left behind a message saying 'Please remove my name from IUOMA'.)

I've decided to keep track for a month or so of who is active in IUOMA, using the 'Birthdays Today' information, as I am curious as to how many 'real'  -- ie active and participatory -- Members we have.

I record Members as being either 'Inactive' or 'Active'. If I'm uncertain as to which they are, I count them as 'Active'. The 'Active' Members are then expressed as a % age of those having Birthdays. The final figure is a prediction of the number of 'Active' Members, based on the starting membership figure of 3,263.

(I KNOW this has methodological deficiencies -- not everyone provides their date of birth; some people may be active in Mail Art, but not in the IUOMA context; the Inactive/Active distinction is simple; birthdays might not be randomly distributed throughout the year; the 30 day period I have chosen is atypical; the 'sample' size is too small etc -- but in the absence of anything better, it's as good an indicator as any other, such as, for example, selecting one name from each of the 156 pages listing IUOMA's 3263 members. AND it is based on a fairly random sample of 200+ names For more on this, please look at the comments below).

So I will be listing what I find in the following 6 columns:

                                                                                                                                    Number of Predicted

Date       No of Birthdays  Inactive Members  Active Members   % Active          Members

Two sets of data are included, eg 11(17)  -- the first the number for that day, the second the cumulative total/%age for that column. I will analyse the Birthdays that are listed here from 22 December, 2013 to 21 January, 2014 for one month.

Here we go:

                                                                                                                                      Number of Predicted

Date    No of Birthdays  Inactive Members   Active Members       % Active        Members

2013

22 Dec         6 (6)                        4 (4)                           2 (2)                          33 (2/6)               1076

23 Dec       11 (17)                      7 (11)                         4 (6)                          35 (6/17)             1142

24 Dec         9 (26)                      7 (18)                         2 (8)                          31 (8/26)             1011 

25 Dec         8 (34)                      7 (25)                         1 (9)                          26 (9/34)               860

                    (It was Jesus' Birthday! He was made an Honorary Member of IUOMA!)

26 Dec         7 (41)                      9 (34)                          0 (9)                         21 (9/43)               685

27 Dec         4 (45)                      3 (35)                          1 (10)                       22 (10/45)             717           

28 Dec         7 (52)                      3 (38)                          4 (14)                       27 (14/52)             876

29 Dec         8 (60)                      7 (45)                          1 (15)                       25 (15/60)             815

30 Dec         7 (67)                      5 (50)                          2 (17)                       25 (17/67)             815

31 Dec         5 (72)                      4 (54)                          1 (18)                       25 (18/72)             815

2014

1 Jan           19 (91)                   18 (72)                          2 (19)                       21 (19/91)             681

2 Jan             7 (98)                     6 (78)                          1 (20)                       20 (20/98)             665

3 Jan             8 (106)                   7 (85)                          1 (21)                       20 (21/106)           646

4 Jan             2 (108)                   2 (87)                          0 (21)                       19 (21/108)           632

5 Jan             9 (117)                   7 (94)                          2 (23)                       19 (23/117)           638

6 Jan           11 (128)                 10 (104)                        1 (24)                       19 (24/128)           611

7 Jan             7 (135)                   6 (110)                        1 (25)                       18 (25/135)           604

8 Jan             8 (143)                   8 (118)                        0 (25)                       17 (25/143)           570

9 Jan             7 (150)                   6 (124)                        1 (26)                       17 (26/150)           565

10 Jan         11 (161)                 10 (134)                        1 (27)                       17 (27/161)           547

11 Jan           3 (164)                   3 (137)                        0 (27)                       16 (27/164)           537

12 Jan           7 (171)                   5 (142)                        2 (29)                       17 (29/171)           553

13 Jan           7 (178)                   4 (146)                        3 (32)                       18 (32/178)           586

14 Jan           5 (183)                   4 (150)                        1 (33)                       18 (33/183)           588   

15 Jan           6 (189)                   3 (153)                        3 (36)                       19 (36/189)           617

16 Jan           3 (192)                   3 (156)                        0 (36)                       18 (36/192)           611

17 Jan         13 (205)                   9 (165)                        4 (40)                       19  (40/205)          636

18 Jan         12 (217)                  10 (175)                       2 (42)                       19 (42/217)           631

19 Jan           6 (223)                    4 (179)                       2 (44)                       20 (44/223)           643

20 Jan           9 (232)                    8 (187)                       1 (45)                       19 (45/232)           632

21 Jan.        11 (243)                    9 (196)                       2 (47)                       19  (47/243)          630

THE END

                      

                                                     

[Valentine Mark Herman]

Eraser Heed/Niklaas: yes, you might take leave for 20 years, but still be 'there' in some sense. Similiarly, you might take leave there 120 years, and be, well....dead. But also still  be 'there' in some sense. See what I mean?

Helen: thank you #1, and keep clicking, whatever the click means. 743 as I write and counting...

And thank you #2 for your interesting interpretation of the Pareto principle. I was disturbed to see that you had only arrived at 100 members. There must be more people active than tha! I never know why people View but don't Favourite -- is it asking too much of them to click a button? I have now favourited my own blog (is that permissible? Of course! Is it ethical? Who cares!) Does that simple move take your estimate of numbers up to120 or 125?

Ruud: I think it was Mark Twain who said, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". All I have here are some statistics. When the analysis is over in a couple of days time, I'll offer an interpretation of the statistics that might lead to an interesting debate.Suus: why is it magic? Because Mr Pareto (and me) said it as so. You can argue with me (and you know you'll win!) but not with Mr P.

[Eraser Heed]

If I should take a leave from IUOMA for two years I would still consider me a member during that time. For example I am still a proud member of he club "Centre de la Recherche", but inactive for 20 years. :)

[Heleen de Vaan]

Nice analysis, Val!

@ Ruud: those (now) 713 viewers aren't unique visitors, are they? Every time I refresh the page, I see the number increase.

Maybe everyone who views this post, should click on 'favorite'. Not everyone will do so, so that's an other way to know how many people are active. Applying the Pareto Principle: at this moment, 4 members favorited this blog. Which is 20%. Which means that 4+(4x4) = 20 people viewed this blog, and if 1:4 (20%) IUOMA members are taking a look at this specific blog, then there are 20+(4x20) = 100 active members :-)

[Suus in Mokum]

Very impressive, although I was already lost at the magic number. Why magic number?

[Ruud Janssen]

700 people viewed your blog, and the number will increase for sure. Statistics always attracts visitors because they can be interpreted in so many ways. Interesting list for sure!

[Katerina Nikoltsou (MomKat)]

naw, maybe in another lifetime...sigh.

[Valentine Mark Herman]

Thanks Katerina! One statistical project at a time for me. BUT if you have nothing better to do in life (ha!) then you could do an analysis of the photos -- it would be quite easy, just record how many different people post photos every day for a pre-determined period of, say, one month. (That's more or less what I'm doingwith the Birthdays). Good luck. Val

[Valentine Mark Herman]

Hey! At the time of writing (06.25 CET) I'me predicting 570 'active' Members AND this Blog has had exactly 570 Views.

Does this mean, i wonder, that each and every 'active' IUOMA Member has viewed it once?

 (I though not!)

[Valentine Mark Herman]

Introducing Mr Pareto and his Principle to IUOMA's 'Real' Members

I chanced across the 'Pareto Principle' today. Basically the Principle sets out a 20%:80%, or a 1:4, ratio. Simply (and I am simple in these matters) it states that 80% of results flow from 20% of their causes.

The Principle has many applications.

For example:

* 20% of motorists cause 80% of accidents

* 20% of musical recordings account for 80% of sales

* 20% of your daily tasks require 80% of your time

* 20% of your mail requires 80% of your attention.

* etc.

My analysis of IUOMA's membership over the last few days has revealed (for whatever it is worth, and I am the last to claim that it is perfect) that 20% of IUOMA's members are 'active' (or 'real'), and 80% are 'inactive'. There it is the 1:4 ratio!

Or to put that another way, for every 5 members registered with IUOMA, only 1 is alive, kicking and Mail Arting within the IUOMA context.

So the Pareto Principle seems to be valid in IUOMA.

But there is more that can be said (and there is probably another principle that explains it).

A very few people account for a very high amount of IUOMA activity.

For example:

* between them, Guido V and Ruud J have posted 16% of all the IUOMA Photos that can be found here

* MomKat and DVS together (I know: what an unlikely combination!) are responsible for 10% of all the Blogs posted

* and I'm sure that there is a similiar (duopolistic?) trend for Discussions and/or Comments, but I haven't managed to work this out, yet.

And so, in conclusion:

i) the Pareto 20/80% rule seems to apply to IUOMA's active/inactive membership

ii) a very few IUOMA members are responsible for a lot of IUOMA activity.

Thank you, good night, and do follow this blog for the next couple of weeks.

[Valentine Mark Herman]

Erni :I think that one of the issues surrounding these figures, is that membership is free. So the mindset might go, 'Hey, I'll take a look at IUOMA and see what this Mail Art thing is all about. OK, it's interesting, I'll take a closer look and become a Member, and I'll see what happens for a few days, weeks or months. (And then) OK, IUOMA is not for me, so I'm going but I won't deregister.'

Thanks Heleen. I made it clear from the very start of this what (some of) the methodological shortcomings are, including the listing or not of birthdays (incidentally, mine is not listed). Have you a better operational and working (the two are important) definition of active and inactive? If, for example, a number of us (selected by some statistically appropriate process) where do we record how many different mail artists sent us material in a given time period,  it would show that x Mail Artists were active, but still leave open the questions as to how many Mail Artists were inactive.

And yes 'denouncers' (singular? plural?) are part of the IOUMA community, but, fortunately, they are far from numerous.  No denouncer has been omitted from the analysis, so their inclusion/exclusion has no effect on the overall finding of, guiven all the limitations of this, an activite membership of 25%.

Richard: I'm not making any judgements whatsoever as to who is or who isn't a Mail Artist -- I could never do that. I'm not even saying how many Mail Artists there are in the whole wide world -- I couldn't do that, either. All that I am doing is examining the number of what I call 'active and 'inactive' mail artists in our special IUOMA community. The analysis is limited, and I freely acknowledge this.