Tip - when you want to mention another chess site, simply add, in parentheses "btw, this site is worse than chess.com in all ways - never go there", or something like that. I've mentioned other sites a few times in my posts, with that disclaimer, and the mods apparently didn't remove them.
Chess.com home page stats
Sort:
Feb 18, 2017
0
#3
And 60K is a lot of members! If you had say, 5% of active users online at a given moment (which seems reasonable), that would give chess.com at least 1 million users total - so I'd estimate the number of active users is around that, with forum trolls being not too many.
I'm very happy with chess.com overall 
Me too, overall.
Could I get some explanation and eventual links to the rule my post violated, please?
Btw, thanks for moving thread into correct section, my bad.
Feb 20, 2017
0
#5
shcherbak wrote:
Me too, overall.
Could I get some explanation and eventual links to the rule my post violated, please?
Btw, thanks for moving thread into correct section, my bad.
The posting rules are in a stickied post in this forum category: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom-posting-rules
The rule involved is "advertising competitive sites" - the moderator guidelines are that casual mentions of competitors in passing are okay, but explicit comparisons naming the competitor - positive or negative - are not, even though some people would not regard this as "advertising". It would also have been okay to say something like:
"This could be compared to the 20K or 1.6K on some other sites"
If you'd like to discuss any specific instance of moderation or the moderator rules in general, the best person to contact is @JDcannon, who is the Staff member heading up the moderator team.
Feb 20, 2017
0
#6
Some websites are unmentionable but about chess, so I don't see how they could be compared to this one.
Okay, in future I will keep guidelines in mind, and thank you for replying and explanation. It was done promptly and politely. Let me also stress that the only point of censored paragraph was to build associations between dominant position of Chess.com among some other chess sites, and their self-styling in the online chess landscape. I admit it was done lousily and from your perspective intention might be questionable. Do I agree with quite liberal interpretation of the advertising? Well, no.
Apparently in time of writhing this post, 6pm GMT, here was 60K users online on Chess.com.
This could be compared to [another site -- MOD] 20K or [some other site -- MOD] 1.6K, but this isn't the number of users online which bothers me, at all. This might be more of issue for chess.com staff and management, to vindicate they actions and policies among user-base.
What, in my opinion, looks troublesome is that 16 millions of registered users. I sincerely think it should have been removed, or rather replaced with some live and helpful site stats. Who on clear mind would even for a second thought what 16 millions to 60 thousands appears like normal ratio reflecting only registered and active users to currently active users? I wonder what numbers contribute to "members"; trolls, bots, closed account, secondary accounts, tertiary account, zero game account, etc... Frankly, I do not want to know the answer.