is irc dying as whole or what

Goddess · none Joined: 03 May 2009 Posts: 14 Location: Sin City

after doing this for almost 12 years now it seems that world of irc is getting smaller, which is odd seeing that everyone and there mother has some kind of sever. i mean thought with time that irc would get bigger as whole and maybe we have, but lately there just seems to be a lot less people that use irc. Finding uses where always had, but having a trouble to find staff is another thing. i understand that everyone may have server or two. but really shouldn't be hard to find someone to willing to jump on be an oper/admin. which bring me to to the title of the post. Is IRC dying? who is to blame for letting this happen? social networks, like myspace and facebook where don't need a brain you just point and click. I understand that people want thing easy, but to become mindless numb troll drone is beyond lame. You are better of going /wrist or /quitlife cause where too queer to have have brain. But really beside i want to know what else you guys are thinking why is irc is dying? cause i know it just more then myspace and facebook that is doing this.

Trixar_za · Posted: Nov 07, 2010 3:21pm Post subject:

I don't really think IRC is dying. It's seasonal for one thing. I've noticed a surge in users from countries currently having a winter or autum/fall which then falls again during spring and summer.

I think the biggest problem at the moment with IRC is it's refusal to evolve. We have a thousand and one innovative things to bring new life to IRC. We can integrate twitter, facebook, identi.ca, rss feeds and just about any IM or chat function with IRC, yet most of don't. We rather resist and fight for the little room left in between.

I've seen this resistance a lot with newbie admins. They're too in love with their false sense of power to dare share it or to expand IRC in any way. Their networks tend not to last more than a month and if it does, tends to go through lots and lots of changes, including it's name.

I have also seen this resistance from older admins. Especially in the presence of something like Janus. Janus is a great tool and a wonderful way to link up networks and share users and resources. Because in it end it's about what the user wants and sometimes it's to be able to chat to multiple networks from 1 address. Be warned though. Running a successful Janus is even harder than running an Network. But many Newbie admin make this mistake, which makes the older ones think the worst of the thing.

So what's my point anyway, you ask? I'm just saying it's time for IRC to evolve and take up these new technologies. Integrate Facebook Chat, Twitter and all those other goodies. Make our competitors work for us. You can already do this with Bitlbee. Now you just need to create the tech to deal with it (like me and Squirm did with our IMBot. Use stuff like Janus and qwebirc. Make it easier for the user and make it fun. That will drag users to IRC by the thousands. IRC is already evolving like this. It's time we accepted it and go with the flow...

PingBad · Posted: Nov 07, 2010 5:04pm Post subject:

A thought provoking question, Goddess - and one that may not have such a clear-cut answer.

While it's true that as time has progressed that the numbers quoted on the front page of this website have been shrinking, the causes of that aren't as obvious. As you've already pointed out, everyone and their mother has their own IRC server/network nowadays; there's also instances of groups of people splintering away from the major networks to found their own - but this is hidden growth we don't see (the networks come to us [opt-in] for indexing, we don't actively hunt for them [opt-out] - that would be somewhat immoral)

IRC will always wax and wane in population with the older veterans leaving and newer kids (statistically, most of the kids seem bent on destroying IRC with crap like xDCC and DDoS wars - but I'll try to keep this out of the discussion Smile

) joining, but whether or not it's at the same rate or more kids joining than veterans leaving is yet another undefined variable in your question.

Trixar_za pointed out (very well, I might add) that IRC does appear to refuse to evolve - but I analogise IRCd/Client authors agreeing on a new standard or feature akin to getting all the world governments to agree on building a common framework of copyright legislation (and, let's face it, that isn't going to happen - not in the next few decades at least)

More thoughts to come for sure Smile

- but, at the end of the day, if someone is frustrated with the apparent ancientness of the protocol/software they are free (make that welcome) to improve upon it (RFC1459 is a publicly available document, along with the 208x series of RFC documents, not withstanding most IRC software is open source)

katsklaw · Posted: Nov 09, 2010 2:03pm Post subject:

few bullets here.

1> IRC is indeed shrinking. Ockham's Razor ("the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one.") suggests this to be true. "seasonal" is a true statement to a point. However, falling from 1.2m to 650k and never raising back to 1.2m is more than a clue that IRC is not simply seasonal. Also if it was as simple as users migrating to their own servers/networks we'd still see roughly consistent numbers. A simplified example would be instead of 5 1000 user nets we'd see 500 10 user nets, it's still roughly 5000 users. However, we aren't seeing that. Lets also add that with Janus (Yes i went there again), networks are interlinking and making smaller networks look bigger, thus tainting the numbers even more. With Janus it's possible to count the same user several times so the current stats could be hiding the true loss of users, inadvertently of course. Quick explanation of that is: User1 on Net1, #Chan1 is interlinked to Net2/#Chan1 and Net6/#Chan5. The 1 user now appears on 3 different networks and is thus counted 3 times by the indexer. Logic then suggests that claimed numbers are overestimated at best. Who knows? We may actually be at 600k or even 450k, though I doubt it.

2> RFC1459 is the only official RFC and that really can't change per se. RFC1130, IAB Official Protocol Standards, says that while experimental protocols are protocols that never intend to be standards, which means that there is really no IRC standard protocol and can be written at anytime by anyone. RFC1459 is an experimental protocol and as such it's usage should be limited to only those participating in the experiment. So while only those involved in the official experiment should be using/changing RFC1459, nothing stops another person/group from creating a new RFC officially establishing IRC as a standard protocol. Million dollar question, who will write it? How will it be planned to replace current "standard" when client authors are so reluctant to change?

3> Yes IRC software at all levels can be found in various stages of development/use is an absolutely true statement. Allow me to make another absolutely true statement. IRC evolution is in a simple statement, at the mercy of the client authors and the end users that use said clients. Example? Sure! Anyone remember/heard of SILC? Didn't think so, awesome idea, too few clients support it, too few users used said clients.

In short the failure of IRC is actually everyone's fault. Servers, Clients and Users are all needed for success. Users and Clients can say it's due to the lack of ircd support, ircd's can say it's the lack of client support, clients and servers can say it's the lack of users. Horse pucky!!, stop pointing fingers and start fixing!! Stop counting your untold fortune that come from your 350 million downloads for software than technologically hasn't changed in 12 years and do something constructive!!

Here's $0.05 for my $0.02, keep the change!

Trixar_za · Posted: Nov 09, 2010 5:25pm Post subject:

This is in reply to your first point:
Ockham's Razor is normally incorrect when used broadly to explain something. It's the same as using the lesser anthropic principle to explain stuff we don't understand. Basically, it's an better to use either of the two than straight up say "We don't know.". We really don't know where the users are going, but we can make a few educated guesses to that regard. Other chatting mediums, social networking, blogging and more likely Real Life.

Reading your definition of tainted results, it can a be extended to mean that every user that joins more than 1 network indexed by SIRC is in fact tainting results. It's a fact most users use and join multiple networks. This would be the same if the person connected to Net #1, Net #2, Net #3 and Net #4 individually or just joined Net #1 that setup a Janus link with the others. It would still count this person on each and every network. This isn't tainting of the stats no matter how much you hate that fact. Further more the user can decide which channels to join and the networks can each decide which channels to share and link. This removes the need for the user to join multiple networks to chat with friends, which they've probably already done. Either way, it's still accurate numbers.

Further more, you assume that every split off network knows about and uses SearchIRC. You're also assuming that they want to be indexed and make the effort to be added here. Some people don't WANT to be indexed. Probably because of the fear of botnets, certain users finding them, want of privacy or they just feel they aren't big enough to be indexed. Not every splinter network has been added here either. I've seen networks that have run years and then only decided on a whim to get themselves indexed. I bet this accounts for at least 30% of our losses user wise, especially if you take into account that older IRCers and some newbies only use 1 or 2 favourite networks instead of like in the old days where they tried 5-10 of them at a time.

Maybe IRC is actually growing, but networks aren't getting themselves indexed anymore like they used to. Maybe users aren't going to as many networks at once as they used to either. That would account for the large 'loss' we've seen. I know for a fact many people don't use the big networks as much anymore. It's easier just to use a smaller network with fewer netsplits (if at all) and closer friends. This makes me believe that the simplest answer is that IRC is in fact growing and our stats are actually more accurate than ever.

katsklaw · Posted: Nov 09, 2010 11:12pm Post subject:

Data proves indexed networks are losing users at the sustained rate of at least 100,000 users per year average for the last 5 years. Please submit your data that suggests that non-indexed networks are growing faster than that. Name a network or a list of networks that have more than 10,000 users that isn't indexed. Simple math says that in order to grow, your gains must be high than your losses.

Secondly, no I don't assume all networks are indexed, I know better. Unfortunately that's the only data we have.

Trixar_za · Posted: Nov 09, 2010 11:49pm Post subject:

You're assuming statistics equal reality. The sad fact about statistics is that it gets MORE ACCURATE the MORE FACTORS that are included. How do you decide what is important or not?

Larger networks are growing smaller. Most people would jump in and say this is proof that IRC is dying. I would say, have you ever been to one of these networks? I can't even get on to some without being banned by their over-sensitive BOPM's. And when you do get on? Many don't allow you to register without an ISP e-mail. Many of us don't have that nor want it. Then there is netsplits and almost zero IRCop or Services support. Basically, many of the big networks just suck. No wonder people go off to start their own. No wonder people leave for a friendlier environment.

You wanted my proof. That's mine. Smaller networks offer more flexibility than HUGE ones. Don't forget that freenode and GameSurge are fairly recent networks. They're growing because they offer something of a nitch market aimed at their users. Nothing fancy, they just offer what their user needs. The result? They grow. And how big they've grown. That's where Undernet and co's users are flooding to. That's where your 1000 lost users went.

But I hear you say but it still shows an reduction? Well say we have 100 small networks ranging from 20 - 50 users that aren't indexed here. We lost 2000 or more users just there. Also say our users only go to freenode or GameSurge and none of the other Big Networks. Say they go to one of these unindexed networks. Guess what? The numbers drop. Why? Because they aren't being counted multiple times. Sound reasonable?

Next time, don't use statistics as proof. They are subjective at best and highly inaccurate at worst.

PingBad · Posted: Nov 10, 2010 6:09am Post subject:

katsklaw · Posted: Nov 10, 2010 11:05am Post subject:

Trix, people leaving large nets does not mean they are all flocking to smaller nets. Some do in fact go to smaller nets but there are hundreds of reasons users are leaving big nets, going to smaller nets is just one of them, so sorry but that proves nothing.

Again, I'm not assuming anything! Please stop accusing me of such! How can you intelligently say I'm claiming it's reality when I've said over and over and over that the data is false?!?! How in the world does that equal assumed reality to you?!

PingBad, no I'm not willing to spend hundreds of hours coding anything of the like. I never said I blamed clients for the lack of support, I simply stated that is where the problem lies. I fully understand the hesitation.

At anyrate, I've said more than I care to say on the topic, you guys have fun with it! ;P

Peace.

Trixar_za · Posted: Nov 10, 2010 11:26am Post subject:

Eh, the fact is people are migrating away from larger networks. Like I said earlier this means they're numbers aren't being counted like it used to be. I remember idling on Undernet, Freenode and a couple of other smaller to larger networks at one point. That probably counted me as a user on all of them. Now I barely leave my own network, meaning I'm not counted as many times as I used to be.

The Point is, bigger networks seem to shrink because most people are are idling on smaller networks instead of on them. This causes an reduction in those networks not being joined. If everybody on SIRC suddenly decided to all join the big networks, you'd probably see a jump of 10k or more users just from our 100 or so forum users. That's what I mean about the stats being subjective at best. We're just not counting as many users multiple times as we used to. That doesn't mean IRC is dying though, it just means we're just not counting people multiple times anymore. Orkram's Razor and all that Wink

Ryan-DM · none Joined: 22 Apr 2004 Posts: 16

katsklaw · Posted: Nov 25, 2010 9:37pm Post subject:

Trix, that's all well and good but I fail to see your theory counting for 700,000 users. That 700,000 is global, that means that those users are not on ANY indexed net! If said users left DALnet for xyznet, we would still have the same or near the same global user count because the users would still likely be counted since there is a very good chance that xyznet is also indexed. I seriously doubt there are any un-indexed nets the size of DALnet or even remotely close. I'd love to see one if you know of any.

I also fail to see 700,000 or any number remotely close mass migrating to un-indexed networks. Science has proven time and time again that if you see a trend in observed subjects, untested subject can be assumed as showing the same result. What I'm saying is that it's a fact that most all the indexed networks are all seeing a universal drop in user count, so it's safe to assume that the un-indexed nets are seeing the same thing.

Yes, users that used to hang out on 5-10 nets that are now on 1-2 does indeed account for a few users, but not 700,000. IRC must be shrinking, there is no other logical explanation to account for the amount of users that are no longer being counted. Once, twice, ten times .. regardless.

I'll submit that there are a good number of nets that are not and don't want to be indexed as it draws too much attention, I for one will not have another network indexed for that same reason. So some of the "missing" users are there, just not counted any more.

Trixar_za · Posted: Nov 26, 2010 4:10am Post subject:

Since I'm being snow-balled here, let me try the following.

Yes, we're losing people to other protocols, but it's MUCH smaller than you both would like to think. Users are limiting themselves to fewer networks, so instead of being accounted 5-10 times, they are only getting counted once or twice. Statisitically, that would account for ATLEAST a halving of the amount for the users limiting their IRC usage and a even greater fall for users that just left. It might look like an impressive number 700,000, but it's not as you consider the amount of users NOT being counted multiple times, and in case of those that left, at all. Now take into account the number of people that are using unknown or unindexed networks and 700,000 doesn't look all that hard to explain.

Ryan, like I said before, Statistics is only as accurate as the amount of data their built upon. Do you agree that Astrology is complete bull? Well, I have a book here called "The Astrology file by Gunter Sachs" that actually statistically proves the accuracy of Astrology. Do you see what I mean?

The problem is that nobody wants to believe the that our statistics used to count 1 user multiple times and still does, only many people aren't on multiple indexed networks anymore, nor indexed networks at all (for whatever reason). This can account for the fall in the statistics. What also can account for the fall is that many of these larger networks aren't that good any more with smaller, more intimate, way more stable alternatives.

Your work focused on these bigger networks. You did not include any of the smaller ones and if you thought about it, you'd realise why there is a loss based on the attitude these networks have towards their users. I speaking for myself rarely go to the big 5 networks, so I don't get counted 5 times for each of them. That 5 makes a difference if it's even 5 more doing the same. Now imagine if 10 000 people decided to do the same. That's 50 000 'people' magically disappearing off the stats. Now imagine 100 000 doing the same and so on and so on. It doesn't take many people to lose 700,000 with all the networks SearchIRC is NOT indexing...

Ryan-DM · none Joined: 22 Apr 2004 Posts: 16

katsklaw · Posted: Nov 26, 2010 9:42am Post subject:

Trix, you aren't being snowballed. I just don't believe your theory is correct. as far as users quitting as much as I believe is no more true than your theory, I can sit here ans tell you the exact same thing. "Your theories aren't as accurate as you believe". As stated many many many times over, no one knows exactly what's happening. I also did include the smaller nets .. what part of "those users are not on ANY indexed net" did you not understand??

Secondly, having 1 book by 1 person doesn't prove anything except that person has an opinion, educated or otherwise.

Ryan, so sorry but I disagree. There is a difference between a user and a client connection. Indexing sites counts client connections, not users. Also your idea there assumes that the user with 5 network connections is contributing equally, which is likely not true. The only thing that can be proven is that for each client connection a socket is used. It's entirely possible for the user with 5 connections to chat or contribute as you put it on only 1 network and not the other 4, therefore creating nothing more than a wasted client connection which is not a contribution at all. That scenario is also realistically why the user drops form 5 networks to 1-2 because they aren't contributing anything to the others.

Secondly, Ryan. I hate to bust your bubble but regardless of how much research you do, you still can't gather accurate data because the irc protocol makes it impossible to gather detailed stats. You see client connections and unless you PM all of them, you can't be positive of the nature of the connection. Having 30 services bots is hardly a contribution to the irc community and isn't even a real client connection. It's nothing more than an ircd claiming to have 30 users, but in reality is the same process. As such your highly valued stats aren't any more accurate than those gathered by an indexer. They are still based on client level access which isn't any more than a few informational commands like /map, /links and /lusers.

Lastly Ryan, since your data is so much better than everyone elses, perhaps you could contribute to the community and share with us the data and how/when the data was collected. So since you are accusing others of spewing forth assumptions as facts .. lets see your "facts". If you truly believe your data is so accurate and as as proud of it as you appear to be, you shouldn't have any issues at all with sharing your data so other like minded and equally experienced "professionals" can validate it's accuracy.