Thread: Disproportionate ratio of Views to Replies.

I believe Divus had a theory about this, which I’ve forgotten. What do YOU think it means, when there’re a huge number of views of a thread, but only a small handful of replies?

Could it mean some people think the topic is lame or they're just not interested in it for whatever reason? I think that's probably it. So they take a look at it and then move on to something else.

I assume it is because the story/poem is of no interest - At least, I hope it is...

D'you mean to say there are people who actually READ poetry? I thought the writers of poetry were a little band of souls who kept to themselves. It gets read too? Wow.

A great percentage of those views are search engine bots, which take time to neither read nor comment.

Not interested, nothing to contribute, return readers checking replies, and not forgetting the window contributors. Many reasons adds up to lots of viewing clicks.

Judging by the number of times I forced myself to come back to the this thread with the intention of posting a reply, and then left, forming a legible sentence is far too much hassle most of the time.

I like experiencing ‘Déjà vu’ as much as possible and just constantly re-enter any thread I deem a waste of time.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

D'you mean to say there are people who actually READ poetry? I thought the writers of poetry were a little band of souls who kept to themselves. It gets read too? Wow.

Borrow a medium and say hello to Banjo Patterson through an appropriate medium. Australia has a great tradition in colloquial poetry and has some very fine poets writing today. That said, I write far more poems than I read, I am easily bored by other people's poems...

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

D'you mean to say there are people who actually READ poetry? I thought the writers of poetry were a little band of souls who kept to themselves. It gets read too? Wow.

In my opinion, a good poet can write circles around the majority of today's popular authors.

The art itself is often too cerebral for the general public, though, so it gets brushed aside in favor of cheap thrills and loud noises.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

In my opinion, a good poet can write circles around the majority of today's popular authors.

Some of the people here can write circles around many of today's popular authors. Seriously, there's several people here who absolutely terrifies me with their elegance [and makes me want to hide under my blanket in a corner]. On the other hand, the last three 'popular' books I've attempted to read made me keep both a bin and bucket beside my bed (Still, I did still learn some things from them).

Originally Posted by Bloggsworth

Borrow a medium and say hello to Banjo Patterson through an appropriate medium.

Yeah, I know, I was just taking the mickey, with WF poets.

“So Clancy rode to wheel them, he was racing on the wing,
Where the best and boldest riders take their place”

“’Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze”

“On the outer Barcoo, where churches are few
And men of religion are scanty”

“I had pondered very weary o’er a volume long and dreary,
For the plot was void of interest, ‘twas the Postal Guide in fact,”


I cut my teeth on this stuff.

Some people enjoy reading without having to post anything back and some others do enjoy giving feedback.
That is how the world roll I suppose.
Different things for different poeple.

It is so good there is nothing to say about it, but people recommend it to each other to read.
Or
It is so bad they can't decide what to criticise first and give up, but message their friends to 'Come and look at this trash'.
Or
It contains some word or phrase that attracts the robots that do most of the reading anyway.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

In my opinion, a good poet can write circles around the majority of today's popular authors.

Circles, schmircles. Poets don't have the same spending power.