# Membership



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

It was posted in another thread that the membership is dwindling. I accept that we have lost a lot of members due to many reasons, which should not be brought up in this thread. But we have had a new contingent flowing in to join which helps bring new ideas and questions to the forum.
So the question is really not counting the numbers quoted, but using our own knowledge and common sense, what was the rough membership before VS and what does one consider it is now.
Oh yes, do you also agree that numbers are again creeping up, maybe because of the time of year.

cabby


----------



## Imbiber (May 11, 2007)

Personally, I never believed the membership numbers Nuke claimed he had, but I do believe we have lost a lot of members and not just because of the ownership change.

In my view the membership count on the homepage was just a rolling count of people who had paid a subscription and was not necessarily 'new' members. 

Every year I subscribed I would be classed as a new member by virtue of re-subscribing.

Consider this effect over several years and the stated membership could very well be over estimated by the 000's.

I came to the forum looking for help and guidance and as such was grateful for those members who had the knowledge and wisdom to impart. 

However, I think that as the questions became more repetitive the long standing members perhaps got bored with offering their advice.

"Use the search facility..." was a common response....but this didn't work very well really in Nuke's day.

Consequently, I think less questions got asked and less motorhome related information was shared.

This for me is the problem with the decline in the forum's use. 

More and more threads are not motorhome related in an attempt to keep the forum ticking over which detracts from its remit. Yes the off topic stuff is fine, but what drives the success of a MotorhomeFacts forum is just that 'MotorhomeFacts'.

Also people don't seem to put faith in the search facility or even use it, which although now works well, has become somewhat out-dated in many respects.

Personally, I think driving away the 'Trade' members was the worst thing that has happened to this forum.

Crikey, this is the most I've written in a long time!!


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Nuke's figures were fiction - they reflected the number that had EVER joined - even if they only joined and never posted or joined, made the 5 posts allowed and NEVER subscribed......

The numbers frankly are irrelevant, the main reason why I like MHF is the QUALITY of the members - if a question is asked it is very rare that you have to wait more than 30 minutes for a response - OK this thread took just over 1 hour so that proves the (in) accuracy of my figure....

but the answers that you get are usually very helpful and reflect exactly what has always been the apparent strength of MHF - people that are willing to help others.

The reference to "use the search facility" is very true - I, for one, had frequent "discussions" with Nuke about the ineffectiveness of the search and was told equally often that I was wrong and that the facility was clear and worked well..... the example I used to illustrate the difficulty was trying to find threads that gave an answer to the question of "the charges on French autoroutes......" hardly difficult but I regularly got links to over 1100 threads....... hardly useful IMO.

I believe that MHF is as strong as it ever was and is gradually gaining more subscribers - all of whom are welcome.

Dave


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Imbiber said:


> In my view the membership count on the homepage was just a rolling count of people who had paid a subscription and was not necessarily 'new' members.


No, the membership count on the home page was never in any way connected with subscriber numbers, Nuke would have been a rich man years ago if it was.
That member count was a cumulative membership headcount, ie: no member was ever deleted from the total so it contained duplicate accounts as well as people who had joined and never visited again. There was no check on validity of Email addresses so lots of duplicates and "Mickey Mouse" members. I don't know if it still counts new members but it shows *91,673 *ATM.



Imbiber said:


> Every year I subscribed I would be classed as a new member by virtue of re-subscribing.


Wrong again I'm afraid, subscriber numbers were kept completely separately.
At the height of MHF subscriber membership (around mid 2011) there were approximately 4,200 subscribers including spouses, staff and quite a few other "complimentary" subscribers (so not all paying). It was always Nukes practice to award free subs to traders and other "experts" in the hope that they would enrich the forum - and it did work.
Maybe you could persuade VS to disclose what the current total is? It would be interesting to hear what everyone thinks it might be now. The subscriber numbers were dropping off substantially long before Nuke sold the site, maybe a factor behind his decision to sell???


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

I bet the number of subscribers is less than half of what it was, maybe even a quarter. Ill guess 1000.


----------

