Life In 19x19

daniel_the_smith wrote:The people running the AGA are not stupid, yet the AGA has many problems. Why? A number of reasons, but a big one is because they are difficult to fix.

OK, I have to go, so I'll cut this short.

Indeed. You have been helpful, informative, and professional even when you had plenty of excuses not to be. Ironically, this thread has improved my perception of the AGA (though I've never had a particularly strong view one way or the other). I don't think you should feel obligated to continue spending time on this thread. While it is up to you, I imagine there are more productive ways to spend your time: playing go....improving the AGA.

bearzbear wrote:It is instructive to recall that 75-90% of all members do not renew for one reason or another. No for profit business would not maximize their "customer" base for "repeat sales" at the very minimum. But this is just a symptom that points to a broader issue.

Just for safety sake, here is the membership generated graph on memberships the last oh, 20 years. LINK
*The BB wouldnt let me embed the image

vash3g wrote:

bearzbear wrote:It is instructive to recall that 75-90% of all members do not renew for one reason or another. No for profit business would not maximize their "customer" base for "repeat sales" at the very minimum. But this is just a symptom that points to a broader issue.

Just for safety sake, here is the membership generated graph on memberships the last oh, 20 years. LINK
*The BB wouldnt let me embed the image

but, itn't this data also skewed by memberships that have temporarily expired?
is it possible to see only expires that never renewed?

because I suspect the expire data is artificially high just from many people accidentally letting their memberships lapse until the next tourney (something the continuous membership rule attempted, but failed to correct)

xed_over wrote:

vash3g wrote:Just for safety sake, here is the membership generated graph on memberships the last oh, 20 years. LINK
*The BB wouldnt let me embed the image

but, itn't this data also skewed by memberships that have temporarily expired?
is it possible to see only expires that never renewed?

I dont like the phrase "temporarily expired" since the AGA treats it as an expired membership. If you take off the 2012 data, last column to the left it will show the data points on memberships each year. If needed I can prod for more details on what membership types are included or excluded from each plot.

bearzbear wrote:It is instructive to recall that 75-90% of all members do not renew for one reason or another.

This claim has been made several times, and I want to see the proof.

The AGA has approximate 2000 members, so the drop-out rate implies 1500-1800 per year. The membership has been approximately flat over the past 12 years, so the number of new people joining has to equal the drop off. So we have approximately 1500-1800 people joinng per year. 1500-1800 people per year for 12 years means that the AGA would have issued 18000 to 21600 new membership numbers since the year 2000.

Funny enough, member number 19702 has only just been issued, and that's over the entire life of the AGA.

Bearzbear, you're trying to bolster your arguments by pulling numbers out of your ass. Stop it.

pwaldron wrote:The AGA has approximate 2000 members, so the drop-out rate implies 1500-1800 per year. The membership has been approximately flat over the past 12 years, so the number of new people joining has to equal the drop off. So we have approximately 1500-1800 people joinng per year. 1500-1800 people per year for 12 years means that the AGA would have issued 18000 to 21600 new membership numbers since the year 2000.

Funny enough, member number 19702 has only just been issued, and that's over the entire life of the AGA.

That's a very good criticism, but didn't numbers restart around 1990? Another factor may be that members may join, let their membership lapse, and rejoin under the same number. That's not perfect, but it's not quite the damning indictment that he's making it out to be.

Also, there's a good concrete test: troll the database for people who joined around 2000, and see what their numbers are. I don't have time to do that right now, but I am 13891 and I joined in 2005. Being generous to bearzbear's case, we could suppose that member 7800 might have joined in 2000.

The 75-90% number was from me, and it's a guesstimate based on our current number of members (~2200) and what the latest member # is (~19000). Sorry, bad me, I should be more careful; it's probably way off. I was just trying to emphasize that I'm aware (actually, I'd say all AGA officials are aware) that we have retention problems.

pwaldron wrote:

bearzbear wrote:It is instructive to recall that 75-90% of all members do not renew for one reason or another.

This claim has been made several times, and I want to see the proof.

The AGA has approximate 2000 members, so the drop-out rate implies 1500-1800 per year. The membership has been approximately flat over the past 12 years, so the number of new people joining has to equal the drop off. So we have approximately 1500-1800 people joinng per year. 1500-1800 people per year for 12 years means that the AGA would have issued 18000 to 21600 new membership numbers since the year 2000.

Funny enough, member number 19702 has only just been issued, and that's over the entire life of the AGA.

Bearzbear, you're trying to bolster your arguments by pulling numbers out of your ass. Stop it.

Suggest you read this: viewtopic.php?p=90147#p90147

Then apologize.

Talk about who is being rude!

_-_-bearzbear

Time out guys, Real Numbers (I have access to the membership database):

Current (2,206)
Lapsed (15,683)

So, 88% of members are lapsed. My estimate was quite close.

The over arching concept seems lost.

Go analogy: people keep talking about which move in a particular variation of a joseki is good or not. What I'm trying to look at is whole board strategy and direction of play!

_-_-bear

daniel_the_smith wrote:Time out guys, Real Numbers (I have access to the membership database):

Current (2,206)
Lapsed (15,683)

So, 88% of members are lapsed. My estimate was quite close.

I'd imagine, there is some percentage who have deceased (not sure how significant the precentage)
Also, I image there is a quite significant number who signed up for a one-time tournament (and perhaps a good number of those have been re-issued new numbers for more than one event)
And many foreign players who have come over for one or a few congresses.

I don't think the problem is still quite that high.

daniel_the_smith wrote:Time out guys, Real Numbers (I have access to the membership database):

Current (2,206)
Lapsed (15,683)

So, 88% of members are lapsed. My estimate was quite close.

All time figures are meaningless. In the end, death gets us all

I'm sorry, must have missed this part, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

_-_-bear

bearzbear wrote:The over arching concept seems lost.

Go analogy: people keep talking about which move in a particular variation of a joseki is good or not. What I'm trying to look at is whole board strategy and direction of play!

_-_-bear

Those both sound important.

TYPES
Full (12,358)
Chapter (494)
Complimentary (14)
E-Journal (195)
Institution (0)
Library (9)
Lifetime (93)
Rating-only (2,413)
Sponsor (85)
Sustainer (166)
Youth (2,413)
Total: 18240

STATUSES
Accepted (17,911)
Current (2,206)
Lapsed (15,683)
Pending (50)
Archived (279)
All (18,240)

While the membership numbers have surpassed 19000, there are a number of lower numbers that have no members attached to them and are available to be chosen by lifetime members if they are available.