How Old Are NT Users? - A Poll
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
How Old Are NT Users? - A Poll
Recently I saw a comment that NT users were mostly very old, making this site unattractive for younger members to join. I believe that was just an opinion, but then I was curious - what is the age distribution on this site? Please complete this poll so we can have a definitive answer about the ages of NT users. You are not giving up much privacy because the request is not for a specific age, but within a range of ages.
Click this link to go to the poll:
Or click the "Seeded Content" link at the top of this article.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
407 visitors
Click this link to open the poll:
Age is a number that is unavoidable if you are alive, attitude and belief are a choice.
Age is a case of mind over matter - Ya don't mind, it don't matter.
Physical age or how old I act? They are two vastly different numbers
[deleted]
I only know the approximate age of about 10 NT members the median or average age of whom would be about sixty to sixty five years old not including Buzz, of course, who would necessarily bring that average up by a couple of years...
LOL. You're probably right.
Did the poll Buzz. Will be interesting to see the results.
It takes up time to mess around on these sites so most are probably retired or have a job where they have time to.
I just took a look at the poll and it does indicate that older members make up the majority, so I think your analysis is valid.
How many younger people would give a whit about most of the stuff that gets the most of the folks here undies in a tight wad to fight over them.
Unfortunately, most of that "stuff" is about all they care about - in fact maybe it's about all they have any capability for or knowledge about. What a pity. However, many here are very good at insulting those who don't agree with them.
I think that is likely true of most any social media or sites such as NT. People would rather create Fight Clubs over personal insults and disagreements then discuss the topic of the articles/seeds. Perhaps it is because they don't know much abut the topic and it's easier to just sling insults and denigrating each other to try to show their superiority over each other.
It's more important to try and out wit everyone else than do any research of the topic for constructive discussion. At least that is how it looks to me.
JMOO
I agree. Meta is the preferred topic.
Another very clear dynamic is 'getting back at someone with whom you disagree; especially if they disagreed well'. It is rare to find individuals who will disagree without eventually getting disagreeable. So, naturally, relationships will form and those who agree will tend to be supportive of each other while those who disagree will tend to turn any topic into a sparring match.
The best way for people to all get along is to never disagree. Always avoid disagreement by not commenting or by moving to another aspect of the topic. Keep your disagreement to yourself. (And this includes up-votes since a vote is incorrectly interpreted as agreement with 100% of the comment.)
This is why a lot of people stick with echo chambers. They choose a non-confrontational environment and pay for it with boredom.
Not sure, I think young people would engage on our topics. Offhand I do not see why not. Maybe the more historical topics, etc. that require a mature perspective to appreciate. Younger people would likely bring in their own nuances and be petty about them (rather than get petty on the nuances important to older people).
I disagree. during my time working with people on the Internet in various capacities, I have found that it is very possible to engage with those who do not agree with each other's opinion or POV and still be able to discuss a given topic without resorting to personal attacks and creating a hostile environment. That it not creating an echo chamber nor is it 'boring'.
There is in fact much that can be learned on both sides if the parties keep an open mind. At least, I have found that to be true most of the time. But, there is nothing that can be learned from turning the discussion into a verbal Fight Club and focusing only on hurling expletives and personal attacks at each other.
But, perhaps I come here for a different reason than many do. Even at my age I want to keep learning, and a very good way to do that is to compare ideas, experiences, POV's and beliefs on the various topics.
For me, endless flame-throwing denigration of others is boring.
It is most definitely possible. There are a few people who I can engage in disagreement without things getting nasty. However, they are a tiny minority. And that is my point. It is far more prevalent for animosity to be the result of disagreement. Especially if neither of the two involved have the perspective you described - of being interested in exploring the content rather than bickering.
On any topics they might find important they would likely bring in a much different view of them. And while they might be interested in some of our topics, they would likely not be at all interested in the endless in-fighting that so many here seem to prefer to engage in, as it does nothing but create a hostile environment that goes nowhere. There is nothing to be learned from that kind of BS but how to try and one-up on your opponent by playing dirty.
Not the kind of environment that appeals to most young people today. At least none of the young people I know, and I know quite a few in various age groups.
Same here. And I have truly enjoyed those conversations. As the saying goes, "There are two sides to every story." And I enjoy hearing the other person's side of the story whether or not I agree with it.
Actually, I get along better with younger people than I do people my own age. We both can learn a lot for each other.
I myself would like to see more younger people here. The conversations would likely be a lot more interesting.
Fully agree. I am so beyond sick of seeing slimy tactics being used in lieu of a good argument.
I on the other hand don’t mind being a Christian conservative on a predominately secular progressive site here where I debate with half my brain tied behind my back due to most of my favorite on line source sites being banned here.
So that's the problem. And here we've been going relatively easy since making fun of the handicapped is so distasteful. If you've been keeping some of your smarts back then please do reengage them. Perhaps using that other half will rid your current half of the laughable conclusion that the earth is only 9,000 years old or that Ken Hamm knows what he's talking about.
I doubt that most of NT members are secular. Likely the opposite. Maybe Buzz will investigate this demographic for us.
One debates with one's own thoughts. Parroting the thoughts of others or merely copying and pasting their words is not actually debate.
So even if all of your sources were banned (and of course they are not) you would not be prevented from engaging in debate.
Rush Limbaugh cliche
A perfect example of the kind of comment that turns potential new members away from this site. It's not necessary to insult a member in order to disagree with them - perhaps stating your feelings in a more general way will still make your point without being nasty.
DP's comment was in response to an equally nasty and frankly laughable comment by xx. Many of us came here for intelligent conversation, which is to be had with DP, so I don't think that DP's conversation in general is turning people away from the site.
I agree, give me the DP original and thought provoking content that he can and does back up over pasted words reflecting the religious-based perspectives of other people.
With the repetition of those pasted words passing for "debate".
I'm sorry, Sandy, but I disagree with you. XX may be unhappy and stated so that many of the sources he uses are banned, BUT HE DID NOT TAKE A SHOT AT ANY INDIVIDUAL ON THIS SITE. DP DID. XX's comment was NOT AT ALL NASTY - it was a lament about banned sites. DP could have just argued against XX's viewpoint, but instead he shot at him - AS DID YOU.
You, a moderator who should be a role model, have just indicated a distinct bias.
You're right Buzz. It was uncalled for and I apologize. I'd had a second margarita at lunch and I guess I was just feeling a little annoyed at the pompous piety of some who seem to treat others like the pharisees treated the am ha'aretz. But I was nasty and you're right, no matter what kind of folk we find on the internet we should strive to always be civil. Sorry Double X Jeff.
xx took a shot at many people on this site with one insult, and yes, it was nasty.
My "bias" is favoring intelligent conversation over unjustified pot shots and parroting as "debate". I'll stick to that bias, thanks.
Usually you ARE civil, and your posts are usually quite intelligent and educational and I admit that I have learned from them. I'm happy that you have seen what I meant, although Sandy, in defending you, did not.
I see what you mean. I just disagree.
I agree with you sandy, but I usually try not to let other peoples actions dictate my own regardless of who's in the wrong. I don't expect XX to make the same kind of mea culpa even if deserved, but that's not for me to say, I can only control my own action and show contrition for my own words, I can't force others to do the same.
You're a gentleman.
Please feel free to ask to remove obvious meta and off topic comments about religion, banned sites and poor behavior
from a "poll" article about the age of NT participants
and we won't need cleanups and apologies anywhere............
7.1.12 most obviously veered off of the topic of ageism and made it about him and his cause. period, Full Stop. Off topic.
Yes. In fact , he did.
Think about it
And as a role model, I wish I could reply honestly.
Honestly, I do.
Usually I am quite lenient about digression from the topic. Maybe it's just because I'm grateful to have more than 3 comments on my articles, the majority of which are mine, as was pointed out elsewhere by someone who is much more adept at insulting members than I am.
However, my poll article has led to what I think are some very valuable side discussions, airing things that should be aired and clearing the air on some of them. It is my prerogative to determine what is off topic, and I will retain that prerogative notwithstanding your suggestion. Thank you.
Apology accepted. We all have our moments. I have no problem discussing viewpoints in a civil manner no matter how much we may disagree on a given topic.
Indeed it is a famous quote of the great one, Rush Limbaugh.
Please explain who exactly that you think I took a shot at with my post. I simply described myself and then that a demographic was in my opinion a majority here. I then used a Rush Limbaugh quote to describe limitations on me here since around half the sites I used to use here are now banned here for no good reason. How is that taking a shot at anyone on this site?
Anybody reading knows that you meant a sly shot at secular progressives. You're so fond of standing by your statements, whether you can support them or not (usually not). Why not this time?
Actually I didn’t. You think about it.
I stand by each and every comment as a badge of honor when certain of opposing ideology or belief system persons delete them.
Then do so now, and stop feigning innocence.
How is saying that secular progressives are a majority of active posters and seeders here a sly shot at them? Explain yourself and your usual reading of others supposed intentions when nothing of the sort was said or suggested.
You go and delete something I wrote as no value or sweeping generalization and then I will. Otherwise prove your version of what you ascribe as my intent.
It's a shot when paired with your "half your brain tied behind your back" phrase. We all know that's how you meant it.
This is trolling behavior. It's harmful to the site. There are people who avoid this place precisely because of this type of behavior.
I try to direct my insults towards those most deserving. [deleted]
And there it is - the reason so many good members have left the site, and so few new ones join in. Not flagging it - it's exactly what I was talking about and must remain as an advertisement of the quality of the person who posted it.
[deleted]
I never saw a comment on the Creative Arts group that would disturb her.
You've just provided an example to what I've been saying, that new members take one look at the nastiness, because the first thing they see is the Front Page which is usually packed with politics and religion and ugly insulting brainless comments like "f*ck off" (even on this non-political non-religious poll) and "t*rd" on both topics, and decide not to join the site.
I meant it how I stated it, not how you read into my intent as you almost always do. You know full well the comment was about losing resources that used to be fine to use here, nothing more.
Yes, he is.
Hate to break it to you but he’s a trusted one here and the one helping to provide that security for this site and getting rid of spam accounts here.
And, how is that working? Dont tell us Putin is in charge of US voter rolls...
I agree that is a major problem
As do I and I choose not to engage in general in comments anything like that.
I call bullshit, but thanks for the brief entertainment.
ty/ph! I was really starting to get worried.
[Removed]
deleted for context
I'm 46. However, I survived a cancer that only has 2 stages and the multiple complications that happened during the treatment. So, my body is probably much older due to mileage.
And, part of the problem, if there is a lack of younger people on the site, is due to the fact that Facebook considers this place a "fake news" or malicious site. I have tried to share articles here on Facebook and it will not allow them to post.
Wow really?
I didn't realize Facebook was censoring that hard.
I dropped it years ago .....
If you copy the link to an article and paste it to Facebook as a comment or as a post, it won't accept it. I notice there is a share button for Facebook, but I did not notice it until today.
Really? I wonder why. Are you interpreting your linking failure as a direct act by Facebook or is there a message that states the link is denied because the source is fake news or malicious?
I use Facebook very little at all. I had no idea they were censoring us too. The irony of one censoring site censoring another pro censorship site is interesting.
That was a (supposedly) a temporary problem related to nudity on the Front Page which has since, supposedly, been cleared up.
It was not due to "fake news.
I will forward this to Perrie as she had an issue with them over nipples recently and thought it was resolved.
It was a picture someone posted of Stormy Daniels that showed too much of her upper breasts on one of my pro Trump seeds. I flagged it and it was removed for TOS.
Tom,
The issue was never fake news. The issue was that some considered the site not to be facebook complaint due some of our images. We are back on facebook and vigilant about compliance in all areas.
Still in the middle group ...... barely.
So far 30 members have answered the poll. It definitely shows that NT members are generally older. Only one member who replied is 39 or younger, while 12 are in the 40 to 59 category (middle age?), 15 in the 60 to 79 range and only 2 are 80 or more.
It has been a good long while since I took Statistics at university (It was not my best subject) but I can still figure out pretty closely that would make the average age of NT members somewhere in the low to mid sixties which is about what I would have guesstimated based on the ones that I know their ages...
Never having studied Statistics, I defer to your opinion.
I’m in the 40-59 group for 10 more months then I move on up.
One of 15 at this point, full disclosure 67, for another month at least.
Even bots have an age factor, right? Or not?
We had an avalanche attack of bots a while ago, so an effective method was used to delete them and prevent their ability to join the site. In any event, bots don't vote in polls.
Not sure I believe your assertion. ( They ) are still here.
Buzz is referring to a cyber attack on NT. We actually are attacked every day by bots trying to sign in new fake members. We now have a bot of our own serving as our bouncer so all is good.
Yes, some who joined previous to the cyber attack could still be here. It is not until they do anything that they get detected. Mostly bots do not tailor their settings - an example being like never creating a unique avatar - just continue with the basic hat, like you.
Lol, hey I like my hat.
Hats like that go back to the days of Prohibition stretching into the 1950s. One of North America's most famous hat makers was Sammy Taft of Toronto. Celebrities, like Frank Sinatra, used to travel to Toronto for the only purpose of buying a new hat or two from Sammy. If you're a hockey fan, you know that a "hat trick" means scoring 3 goals in a game. Here's a great story about Sammy Taft and the "hat trick".
I'm so old that I have an autographed copy of the Bible.
LOL
Not a Gutenberg first issue I hope.
Sorry Paula, it was there.
Actually it’s the original The Living Bible.
It is always interesting watching Christians battle over who has the better faith or who can best interpret the Bible. On The Living Bible :
I think you and xx have different ideas on what is meant the "The Living Bible".
What do you think XX means by 'The Living Bible'?
My guess would be the King James Version, but he'd have to confirm or deny. I doubt that it's any modern translation.
I was referring to the year it was first published...1971 by the way and nothing more. I got one back then when I was growing up and still have it. I still have my first vacation bible school Bible from 1970 as well an original gift box KJV that was about $5 back then.
You know, we were all young once, too. I wouldn't be too worried about the age demographic; most of today's young people will get here eventually.
The only thing that suggests is that NT is something to grow into. Older people have a much broader range of experience to draw from so we old fogies tend to discuss things more. A discussion forum attracting an older demographic shouldn't be that surprising.
As of this moment, here are the results from 47 members:
Less than age 20.......0
Age 20 - 39..............1
Age 40 - 59............ 19
Age 60 - 79.............25
Age 80 or greater......2
"I myself would like to see more younger people here." (Raven Wing)
Then the next question to answer is whether we, mostly being more mature adults, WANT to attract younger members. If the majority of us do not, then there is no real purpose in continuing with this topic, but if we do, then that points to the next step as to why I posted this poll.
What we would now need to do is to come up with suggestions on how to interest more younger members in joining in with us. Perhaps it has to do with the topics that mostly fill the Front Page, which is what most persons who originally check out this site will most likely peruse in order to join and take part. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the groups are not better promoted, or are not sufficiently varied. Maybe the regularity of nastiness needs to be better curtailed. We can continue our discussion along those lines, or others that you all might suggest.
I don't know that we need younger members. I just said that the other evening out of frustration. Looking at it from a positive point of view, it did at least inspire you to generate this poll.
Yes, PJ, you were the catalyst, and the poll did lead to not only a lot of interesting information but also a lot of good commentary. I still do intend to follow up with eliciting suggestions for expanding the age parameters, and opinions as to why or why not.
In my opinion NT needs what any general discussion forum needs:
On top of that, the tone needs to be more personally civil with a lessened need for moderation. We probably should be harsher on those who are here to simply troll.
The site itself (except for mobile) I think is in good shape; at least it is not clear to me what can be done (being practical that is) to make a major difference.
That said, the other sites are all dead ... very little activity ... boring.
I think lack of exposure is the primary problem. Newsvine had a huge advantage there in that it drew in people discussing articles posted on msnbc. NT has no similar audience from which to recruit.
It is the biggest challenge facing most every website. But even with good exposure, the content must be there to attract and retain members.
With that I am absolutely in agreement.
Last fall, at the time of member discussion, I think Perrie will tell you that I was a tiger about being harsher with CoC violators - increasing the penalties, and in fact increasing the causes for violations. I have little patience for intentional lack of civility, insults and immaturity. Although I once tried moderating, I decided I would have had difficulty in being "moderate" so I decided to give up that part of my moderator privileges, but I still am a member of the Moderator group with certain privileges used to benefit the site, such as deleting spammers. Although the motto here is "Speak Your Mind" I think the word "Civilly" should be added to it, in fact I am in favour of deleting the Heated Discussions group. If we are supposed to be mature, educated, intelligent individuals, why do we need it? Let off your steam by banging your head on the floor.
Well, on this, at least, we are in agreement.
That is just it. If NT was a print publication I would hid it from friends and family. My ancient Mom has perused NT on occasions because she knows I frequent the site. She said she felt dirty. Like she needed a long shower to wash off the ignorance and hate. Too much of the current content is aimed at attracting some bad elements which pretty much instantly repels a better class of contributors. NT currently appears to unbiased observers to be a clearinghouse for the exact same kind of fake news, patent misinformation and divisive inflamatory content that decent Americans resent being shared with them by their crank relatives and other social misfits on Facebook. As Mama said, "Nobody wants to read that lousy lying bullshit". Proper editorial control of content is the key to turning this ship around. Unfortunately, for ownership, as it has developed over time many of this site's most prolific contributors would be violently opposed to this ever happening...
There is another site about 25x larger in membership that is always busy. They even have a moderator who has a face image of Obama as his avatar.
So you see MBFC as inadequate in screening out seeded content that you or your mom don’t want to see here?
What is the site?
Correct! New propaganda sites pop up as quickly as reregs on Newsvine.
It is up to the management of all sites to exercise proper editorial control of their own content. It is not new or opinion I find offensive as long as the thesis is presented honestly. Inflamatory fake news, patently divisive misinformation and harmful foreign propaganda should always be removed. The New York Times and Fox News choose what content gets published or reported. They would never let just anyone submit anything and then run with it without exercising proper professional editorial control over their content...
You're speaking about that antisemitic cartoon the NYT ran recently?
[We don't advertise other sites here.]
Well the New York Times and Fox News are not the same as a general political and news discussion forum. People there are generally commenting on news or opinion generated or covered by those outlets rather than relying on members to bring in news and commentary from their competitors for their membership to comment on.
good point. It seems that there are some on the left very often complaining about content brought here by their ideological opposition. Meanwhile there is very little complaining from members here on the right making the same issue about seeded content brought here by our ideological opposition. It I believe has something to to with tolerance for a wide diversity of ideas and opinion and who has it...
And the squeakiest wheel getting the grease...
I think the age in years of members and the way they act here are very different
Well said!
Prove it.
Ain't hard, just look at it
I have to agree with this. There is also an ideological difference in the recent use of profanity and expletives directed by one side at the other side’s members and ideas expressed.
Desperation.
Hey, I'm 64 and I can still chase my four grandkids down. The oldest is 22!
Good for you, Superman! LOL
Voting has now ended on the poll, and the final results, which should not be a surprise to anyone, are as follows:
Kind of what was expected. I wonder how many are male and female?
Had I asked that question, there are members here who would say I was misogynistic and sexist, and on the prowl for teenage girls, and they would pounce on me and post articles about it and pay some penniless women to swear affidavits about how I molested them when they were 10 years old even though Trump is not intending to nominate me for the SCOTUS.
Wow
lol....ring of truth to that.
Wow ..... NT is geezer central.
Guess we're just not cool enough for the kids and hipsters ......
This article has now served (survived?) its purpose, so it's time to move on to the subsequent topic of how to make the site better which can be followed on TiG's article. Therefore I am now locking this article for good.