lots of views, very few posts in threads..why?

[Boris Norris]

Yes, a KI chat bot could. But calling you a bot is nevertheless nonsense.


Currently there is no known incidence.

Thank you. I thought so.

 

[pjmret]

I try it once more.

Search engine bots are visiting the forum, reading the forum and inserating the content found into the search engines. This is not about KI, this is not about any KI chat bot writing in the forum.



I never said that.

let me be precise. yes, I was talking about bots READING these threads, increasing the views (But not the replies). I made a poor choice of words of "trolling".


juist as an example, the "why did john kerry take so long to concede" thread has a whopping ONE reply (mine) to the OP, but 110 views. I was just curious if there was any analysis of the 110...was it a lot of lurkers, a lot of bots reading these threads, a mix, or what?

I didn't mean to make this contentious.

 

[Phoenix68]

let me be precise. yes, I was talking about bots READING these threads, increasing the views (But not the replies). I made a poor choice of words of "trolling".

juist as an example, the "why did john kerry take so long to concede" thread has a whopping ONE reply (mine) to the OP, but 110 views. I was just curious if there was any analysis of the 110...was it a lot of lurkers, a lot of bots reading these threads, a mix, or what?

.
As it is, with most (obviously) "conservative"-created threads, "lurkers" were more-than-likely expecting to see the details of that thought / post (not exactly the purview of the average "conservatives", here).​

 

[AugustineJurnior]

just curious why there are only a handful of posters but many times more views of threads. Are these bots cruising the net looking for whatever? maybe this is normal for discussion threads? Just curious if anyone has any idea.

People want truth shared, not doubts and opinions.
When someone says something strong (whether true or false) it shakes up the many who have no core beliefs, or at least none that bubble up to explicit recognition.

So, you will find top viewing for extremist buttheads and for purveyors of tradiation wisdom

 

[AugustineJurnior]

.
As it is, with most (obviously) "conservative"-created threads, "lurkers" were more-than-likely expecting to see the details of that thought / post (not exactly the purview of the average "conservatives", here).​

It tickles me, your idea of 'conservative' . It bears no relation to true conservatism, which is about starting from the accumulated wisdom of the hundreds of millions of folks who lived over thousands of years.

RIght wing, Libertarian, Traditionalsit...these are not conservative in the way a Lincoln or a John Adams, or Washington is.
IF you serve two masters, you are not a Conservative.

 

[Phoenix68]

It tickles me, your idea of 'conservative' . It bears no relation to true conservatism, which is about starting from the accumulated wisdom of the hundreds of millions of folks who lived over thousands of years.

.
.....Specifically why I employ (both) "conservative" and Conservative.
.
.
Conservative: one who adheres to traditional methods or views; the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to Change.
.
.
"conservative": a fascist in Conservative-"clothing".
.​

 

[bill m]

How can you tell they bots then?

There little gears whir when they post.