Prohibit Welcome Telegrams in Feeders

[Afforess]

Welcoming TGs in GCRs aren't 'recruiting' anyone, Afforess. They're already bloody there.

Your statement falls flat considering the large amount of empirical data that shows otherwise. You can keep repeating the same lie over and over, but that doesn't turn it into the truth.

[Mad Jack]

Guys, the WHOLE POINT of welcoming TGs being automatic like that is to increase retention. They've done their job. get over it.

The only regions using them were UCR's - they were meant as a simple solution to complicated bots. Welcome TG's were not meant as a way for GCR's to recruit new players before even paid-for-stamp-telegrams could reach a player. They are being broadly abused.

No. A recruitment TG is a message that encourages the recipient to move regions. It's not recruitment to welcome someone to your region, or encourage them to stay. - [violet]

[The Black Hat Guy]

Welcoming TGs in GCRs aren't 'recruiting' anyone, Afforess. They're already bloody there.

Can we all just agree that this point is just a matter of semantics? Whether or not Feeders recruit or retain regions, the point is that the new Welcome Telegrams are decreasing the effectiveness of recruitment for UCRs. Feeder populations are increasing at a much higher rate than before, certainly a much higher rate than most other regions, likely because of this new feature, which effectively is giving them a free way to draw in even more nations than before at the expense of UCR recruitment

Whether or not this can technically be considered "recruiting" is rather irrelevant.

[Mad Jack]

Welcoming TGs in GCRs aren't 'recruiting' anyone, Afforess. They're already bloody there.

Can we all just agree that this point is just a matter of semantics? Whether or not Feeders recruit or retain regions, the point is that the new Welcome Telegrams are decreasing the effectiveness of recruitment for UCRs. Feeder populations are increasing at a much higher rate than before, certainly a much higher rate than most other regions, likely because of this new feature, which effectively is giving them a free way to draw in even more nations than before at the expense of UCR recruitment

Whether or not this can technically be considered "recruiting" is rather irrelevant.

"Most other regions" don't recruit at all...

[The Black Hat Guy]

"Most other regions" don't recruit at all...

Again, that's besides the point. The ones that do are being shortchanged by this feature.

[Mad Jack]

"Most other regions" don't recruit at all...

Again, that's besides the point. The ones that do are being shortchanged by this feature.

No one is being short changed. [violet] has already stated that there is a difference between welcoming and recruitment telegrams, and that's really all there is to it. What those who want to prohibit welcome telegrams in the GCRs are doing is have the admin team yet again penalise the GCRs at the expense of regions that aren't worth anything to the game.

[Detective Figs]

Black Hat, I think I love you right now. I started to collect similar data (top 20 regions excluding puppet dumps) back through February, in order to graph their population trends, but then my computer crashed and I lost it all and decided to give up and go to bed instead.

Given the improved data, it does appear that welcome TGs in feeders are making a difference. This is both what they were supposed to do, and rather worrying for player retention and quality control.

If anyone has data on the number of new nations over the last few months, I'd love to see it - it's harder to extrapolate from raw population because it could just as easily be an excess of CTE's as it could be less new nations. That being said, it's more likely some combination of the two, so my point still stands.

I've got a list of nearly all new nations going back through sometime on March 17th, but not divided up by date. There's a total of 152490, though with a few days missing here and there when my script stops working and I don't notice right away.

What those who want to prohibit welcome telegrams in the GCRs are doing is have the admin team yet again penalise the GCRs at the expense of regions that aren't worth anything to the game.

I wasn't aware that providing the vast majority of competent players to GCRs was utterly worthless.

[Cerian Quilor]

Welcoming TGs in GCRs aren't 'recruiting' anyone, Afforess. They're already bloody there.

Your statement falls flat considering the large amount of empirical data that shows otherwise. You can keep repeating the same lie over and over, but that doesn't turn it into the truth.

The empirical data is that more nations are staying in the GCRs that make them, not that they are being recruited by them. It is significantly easier to get a nation to stay where it is than it is to get a nation to move. Retention =/= Recruitment. I'm not lying, you just have an inaccurate set of definitions.

Affy, I hate the expansion of the GCRs as much as any Userite with a region to run. But whining and bitching and moaning about the welcoming telegrams isn't going to make things better, and it makes the whiners just look like that - whiners.

[Cormac A Stark]

No one is being short changed. [violet] has already stated that there is a difference between welcoming and recruitment telegrams, and that's really all there is to it. What those who want to prohibit welcome telegrams in the GCRs are doing is have the admin team yet again penalise the GCRs at the expense of regions that aren't worth anything to the game.

People spending money on stamps in order to recruit are being short changed, because "welcoming" TGs -- which are for all intents and purposes the equivalent of recruitment TGs, but using a different name -- are arriving in people's inboxes more quickly than recruitment TGs, and for free. This is obviously a problem, because the people who are paying and whose money is sustaining the servers are getting the stamps they're paying for undercut by "welcoming" TGs that GCR Delegates don't have to spend any money on.

I don't think we necessarily need to prohibit "welcoming" TGs in GCRs, but they do need to be thrown into the random queue along with other recruitment TGs. They shouldn't be showing up in people's inbox before the TGs people are paying money to send, at least not every time.

The idea that UCRs aren't worth anything to the game is, frankly, ludicrous. Most of gameplay is driven by UCRs, whereas GCRs are for the most part chronically inactive and unwilling to get off the fence and take a firm stance on anything gameplay related. If admins stack the system in favor of GCRs they will be stacking the system in favor of stagnation and chronic inactivity.

[Cerian Quilor]

The Welcoming TGs get buried quickly, Cormac. I've seen the effect when I make military puppets. First in line doesn't matter. What does is which is at the top of your inbox when you go inside it - rarely is it the welcoming TG.

[The Black Hat Guy]

The Welcoming TGs get buried quickly, Cormac. I've seen the effect when I make military puppets. First in line doesn't matter. What does is which is at the top of your inbox when you go inside it - rarely is it the welcoming TG.

That appears to contradict both recent data and past precedence. Before the TG queue cam into being, scripts sent TGs a soon as they possibly could specifically because order matters so much. When I make puppets nowadays, I first get the NS welcome, then I'll click on another link and poof, Welcome TG. If I bother to read that, after I'm done, only then do the recruitment TGs start to appear.

No one is being short changed. [violet] has already stated that there is a difference between welcoming and recruitment telegrams, and that's really all there is to it. What those who want to prohibit welcome telegrams in the GCRs are doing is have the admin team yet again penalise the GCRs at the expense of regions that aren't worth anything to the game.

All UCRs are being shortchanged because the retention rate of GCRs is so much better due to Welcome TGs - there's fairly objective data to prove that.

Yes, there's a difference between recruitment and retention, but for the purposes of GCRs, the difference is a matter of semantics. GCRs are able to retain more nations because of welcome TGs, and removing that benefit isn't penalizing GCRs, it's leveling the playing field again, at least as much as it can be. Feeders will always have an intrinsic advantage over UCRs, and I'm not complaining about that because it's an inherent part of how the game works, and it works well. That being said, giving them further advantages is detrimental to UCRs and their recruitment efforts, which are certainly being shortchanged by Welcome Telegrams.

I'd also like to echo Cormac A Stark - the idea that UCRs "aren't worth anything to the game" is a ridiculous and unfounded concept.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

I've dug up an old study of GCR population trends by Todd dating back to 2011. It is by far the most extensive study of GCR populations yet conducted, and I invite everyone commenting in this thread to read it. The seven years of data he collected and the conclusions he was able to draw from it conclusively prove the central argument that GCR populations have always gone through simultaneous periods of dramatic decline and gain.

The data that TBHG has gathered and presented is not persuasive. By limiting his coverage to one period of decline and growth he has drawn politicized conclusions that are fundamentally incorrect, based on a faulty set of data. Current GCR population trends fit the historic pattern better than the hypothesis that the welcome TG has had a dramatic effect, and until persuasive data is produced otherwise - such as the failure for a new decline period to begin - then the only logical conclusion one can come to is that this is a standard growth period.

In short, the data suggests that we are simply in a standard GCR growth period, which may or may not have been made more dramatic due to the introduction of the welcome TG. However, with the data clearly showing that the growth period began before the introduction of the welcome TG it clearly cannot be attributed solely to said welcome TG.

[Solorni]

I'm not so certain that it's the welcoming TG causing increased retention or if it's the widespread usage of stamps. A nation might receive my welcoming TG, which btw is something like 3 lines but at the same time... that will quickly be swamped by UCR members who use stamps.

Agreed. Another reason I decided to stay was that you're telegram was the most polite "recruitment" I've ever seen. Everyone else pretty much demand that you join. Also, I like the fact that we have embassies in both Skyrim and Albion.

I would believe that is the issue. Now, I do feel sympathy for members of the UCR. I was once a fairly dedicated member of a couple and have sent between 10K and 20K recruiting telegrams combined for a few regions. I liked the idea that a region could get bigger through dedication and being able to put yourself through the mindless task of repetitive recruitment. Now, there is no longer as much work involved and people are paying for diminished returns. Plus, I don't think it's fair for newer members to be hammered by a great multitude of telegrams asking them to join their region.

The welcoming feature should be kept imo. It's a great feature in making newer nations feel welcome.

[Cerian Quilor]

The Welcoming TGs get buried quickly, Cormac. I've seen the effect when I make military puppets. First in line doesn't matter. What does is which is at the top of your inbox when you go inside it - rarely is it the welcoming TG.

That appears to contradict both recent data and past precedence. Before the TG queue cam into being, scripts sent TGs a soon as they possibly could specifically because order matters so much. When I make puppets nowadays, I first get the NS welcome, then I'll click on another link and poof, Welcome TG. If I bother to read that, after I'm done, only then do the recruitment TGs start to appear.

No one is being short changed. [violet] has already stated that there is a difference between welcoming and recruitment telegrams, and that's really all there is to it. What those who want to prohibit welcome telegrams in the GCRs are doing is have the admin team yet again penalise the GCRs at the expense of regions that aren't worth anything to the game.

All UCRs are being shortchanged because the retention rate of GCRs is so much better due to Welcome TGs - there's fairly objective data to prove that.

Yes, there's a difference between recruitment and retention, but for the purposes of GCRs, the difference is a matter of semantics. GCRs are able to retain more nations because of welcome TGs, and removing that benefit isn't penalizing GCRs, it's leveling the playing field again, at least as much as it can be. Feeders will always have an intrinsic advantage over UCRs, and I'm not complaining about that because it's an inherent part of how the game works, and it works well. That being said, giving them further advantages is detrimental to UCRs and their recruitment efforts, which are certainly being shortchanged by Welcome Telegrams.

I'd also like to echo Cormac A Stark - the idea that UCRs "aren't worth anything to the game" is a ridiculous and unfounded concept.

Then you're clicking amazingly fast.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Then you're clicking amazingly fast.

To my knowledge, recruitment telegrams are not sent until 50 seconds after a nation is created. Welcome Telegrams arrive within the first 10. A 40 second window is not in anyone's definition of "amazingly fast"

I've dug up an old study of GCR population trends by Todd dating back to 2011. It is by far the most extensive study of GCR populations yet conducted, and I invite everyone commenting in this thread to read it. The seven years of data he collected and the conclusions he was able to draw from it conclusively prove the central argument that GCR populations have always gone through simultaneous periods of dramatic decline and gain.

(Image)

The data that TBHG has gathered and presented is not persuasive. By limiting his coverage to one period of decline and growth he has drawn politicized conclusions that are fundamentally incorrect, based on a faulty set of data. Current GCR population trends fit the historic pattern better than the hypothesis that the welcome TG has had a dramatic effect, and until persuasive data is produced otherwise - such as the failure for a new decline period to begin - then the only logical conclusion one can come to is that this is a standard growth period.

In short, the data suggests that we are simply in a standard GCR growth period, which may or may not have been made more dramatic due to the introduction of the welcome TG. However, with the data clearly showing that the growth period began before the introduction of the welcome TG it clearly cannot be attributed solely to said welcome TG.

I've noted multiple times that this could indeed be a coincidence, that the increase in retention following the introduction of Welcome Telegrams could certainly be a part of the normal fluctuation of the size of Feeder regions. I don't think anyone has challenged the assertion that GCR populations fluctuate over time.

That being said, however, the assertion that "the only logical conclusion one can come to is that this is a standard growth period" is patently false. There is no known method of predicting how the populations of Feeders will fluctuate, and thus we have to assume that Feeders would have been equally likely to increase or decrease in size after the introduction of Welcome Telegrams, given the assumption that Welcome Telegrams had no effect on retention rates. This clearly did not happen, and thus the likely conclusion is that Welcome Telegrams do increase retention rates.

However, that is not to say that we can't marginally predict the population of feeders. Looking at the total NS population and matching it up to the graph of the feeders, we can see that Feeder regions generally adhere to the same pattern as the total population. I also showed earlier that the current change does not match up to the population of NS - NS is shrinking while Feeders are growing. Given that additional knowledge, we have further evidence that this change is not part of the normal fluctuation of the populations of Feeders.

We can and should look to the future to see if these retention rates continue, but for now, we have sufficient evidence to say that the most likely theory is currently that Welcome Telegrams significantly increase retention rates.

[Hobbesistan]

It's my personal opinion that the effectiveness of feeder welcome TG's is mitigated by the fact its piled to the bottem of a list of 19 other recruitment TG's within minutes- I'd hardly call feeder welcome TG's the 'center' of the problem - The whole stamp advertising system, as I (hoped) to prove a point of with my C&H spam before Sedge stepped in, is rather flawed.


Futhermore, looking at (what I imagine) are afforess's graphs, (http://imgur.com/a/ek60B), these don't entirely prove that the welcome TG is entirely the cause of it.

If that was the case, we would notice a steady and fast gain in population immediatly, if not soon to immediatly after the implementation of welcome TG's, although true all feeders have experianced net gain, TSP and TEP to name two have had drops in population after the implemation of welcome TG's, so, again, although I can't decisively say its not a cause of it, I would refrain from pinning 100% of the blame of the gain on welcome telegrams.


If you want a more decisive graph (who doesen't)- I'd look at citizenship rates (rates of new citizens coming in) to all the feeders, because if you can prove that people decisively are more likely to stay and get involved with the regions government, then you are far more likely to be able to link that to welcome telegrams. You can not entirely prove that the net gain of nations in feeders is directly linked to the welcome telegram- although I will concede it is likely a part of it.


By removing welcome telegrams from GCR's, you won't accomplish much -- Your recruitment telegrams, provided they even get delivered, will just be one in a pile of twenty and most likely ignored -- I fail to see on how taking pot-shots at the GCR welcome telegrams will magically fix the underlying problem.

[ErasmoGnome]

I've dug up an old study of GCR population trends by Todd dating back to 2011. It is by far the most extensive study of GCR populations yet conducted, and I invite everyone commenting in this thread to read it. The seven years of data he collected and the conclusions he was able to draw from it conclusively prove the central argument that GCR populations have always gone through simultaneous periods of dramatic decline and gain.

The data that TBHG has gathered and presented is not persuasive. By limiting his coverage to one period of decline and growth he has drawn politicized conclusions that are fundamentally incorrect, based on a faulty set of data. Current GCR population trends fit the historic pattern better than the hypothesis that the welcome TG has had a dramatic effect, and until persuasive data is produced otherwise - such as the failure for a new decline period to begin - then the only logical conclusion one can come to is that this is a standard growth period.

In short, the data suggests that we are simply in a standard GCR growth period, which may or may not have been made more dramatic due to the introduction of the welcome TG. However, with the data clearly showing that the growth period began before the introduction of the welcome TG it clearly cannot be attributed solely to said welcome TG.

That's not really a well-ground observation. Feeder population has always correlated strongly with the population of NationStates at the time - look here for proof of that, then just compare it to your picture.

However, directly contradicting the previous trends, while feeder population has increased since the welcome telegram (as TBHG's graphs show), the NationStates population as a whole has been decreasing, as seen here.

So we have a direct contradiction between a previously quite strong correlation - feeder increase with population with NationStates as a whole. But after the addition of welcome telegrams, feeders have been going up in population while the rest of nationstates has been going down in population. Yes, there are giant fluctuations in the size of feeders, but they aren't random - they are attributable to other trends, trends that don't match up with the current change. I find TBHG's explanation of Welcome Telegrams as the impetus to be far more appealing.

[The Black Hat Guy]

It's my personal opinion that the effectiveness of feeder welcome TG's is mitigated by the fact its piled to the bottem of a list of 19 other recruitment TG's within minutes- I'd hardly call feeder welcome TG's the 'center' of the problem - The whole stamp advertising system, as I (hoped) to prove a point of with my C&H spam before Sedge stepped in, is rather flawed.

Before the queue system was introduced, scripts would rush to send telegrams as soon as a nation was founded specifically because sending them first was so much more effective. Now we have Feeder regions with the ability to send telegrams 40 seconds before any other. That's certainly going to be more effective.

Futhermore, looking at (what I imagine) are afforess's graphs, (http://imgur.com/a/ek60B), these don't entirely prove that the welcome TG is entirely the cause of it.

If that was the case, we would notice a steady and fast gain in population immediatly, if not soon to immediatly after the implementation of welcome TG's, although true all feeders have experianced net gain, TSP and TEP to name two have had drops in population after the implemation of welcome TG's, so, again, although I can't decisively say its not a cause of it, I would refrain from pinning 100% of the blame of the gain on welcome telegrams.

I got those graphs from NSDossier. In any case, many regions didn't implement a welcome telegram until a few days after, and even then many refined it afterwards, making it more effective. It takes time for regions to become accustomed to new features, which would easily explain the slower increase.

Your recruitment telegrams, provided they even get delivered, will just be one in a pile of twenty and most likely ignored -- I fail to see on how taking pot-shots at the GCR welcome telegrams will magically fix the underlying problem.

No one's expecting to have their recruitment rates magically shoot up 10% if Welcome Telegrams are removed. However, it is objectively true that the more nations stay in Feeder regions, the less go to UCRs, which means recruitment is less effective. Even if that's just a few nations, that matters, especially, with, as you say, recruitment rates so low these days.

[Cerian Quilor]

You're overstating the power of 40 seconds.

[ErasmoGnome]

You're overstating the power of 40 seconds.

But does anyone not click that quickly? Fairly certain for almost all people, the first telegram they'll read (besides the NS one) is going to be their feeder welcome telegram. As any recruiter can tell you, the first one they read is by far the most important - the earlier the better. There's no way the influence of Welcome Telegrams can be denied because every single new nation reads them before even getting their first recruitment telegram. It's huge. 40 is far more than enough time - if all my recruitment telegrams landed that early, the Versutian Federation would probably be triple the size it is now.

[Leutria]

I don't know about other people, but when I was new the first thing I did was address issues (issues is at the top). If people even look at one issue first that provides time for the first recruitment telegram to come in.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

I've dug up an old study of GCR population trends by Todd dating back to 2011. It is by far the most extensive study of GCR populations yet conducted, and I invite everyone commenting in this thread to read it. The seven years of data he collected and the conclusions he was able to draw from it conclusively prove the central argument that GCR populations have always gone through simultaneous periods of dramatic decline and gain.

The data that TBHG has gathered and presented is not persuasive. By limiting his coverage to one period of decline and growth he has drawn politicized conclusions that are fundamentally incorrect, based on a faulty set of data. Current GCR population trends fit the historic pattern better than the hypothesis that the welcome TG has had a dramatic effect, and until persuasive data is produced otherwise - such as the failure for a new decline period to begin - then the only logical conclusion one can come to is that this is a standard growth period.

In short, the data suggests that we are simply in a standard GCR growth period, which may or may not have been made more dramatic due to the introduction of the welcome TG. However, with the data clearly showing that the growth period began before the introduction of the welcome TG it clearly cannot be attributed solely to said welcome TG.

That's not really a well-ground observation. Feeder population has always correlated strongly with the population of NationStates at the time - look here for proof of that, then just compare it to your picture.

However, directly contradicting the previous trends, while feeder population has increased since the welcome telegram (as TBHG's graphs show), the NationStates population as a whole has been decreasing, as seen here.

So we have a direct contradiction between a previously quite strong correlation - feeder increase with population with NationStates as a whole. But after the addition of welcome telegrams, feeders have been going up in population while the rest of nationstates has been going down in population. Yes, there are giant fluctuations in the size of feeders, but they aren't random - they are attributable to other trends, trends that don't match up with the current change. I find TBHG's explanation of Welcome Telegrams as the impetus to be far more appealing.

Then you're clicking amazingly fast.

To my knowledge, recruitment telegrams are not sent until 50 seconds after a nation is created. Welcome Telegrams arrive within the first 10. A 40 second window is not in anyone's definition of "amazingly fast"

I've dug up an old study of GCR population trends by Todd dating back to 2011. It is by far the most extensive study of GCR populations yet conducted, and I invite everyone commenting in this thread to read it. The seven years of data he collected and the conclusions he was able to draw from it conclusively prove the central argument that GCR populations have always gone through simultaneous periods of dramatic decline and gain.

(Image)

The data that TBHG has gathered and presented is not persuasive. By limiting his coverage to one period of decline and growth he has drawn politicized conclusions that are fundamentally incorrect, based on a faulty set of data. Current GCR population trends fit the historic pattern better than the hypothesis that the welcome TG has had a dramatic effect, and until persuasive data is produced otherwise - such as the failure for a new decline period to begin - then the only logical conclusion one can come to is that this is a standard growth period.

In short, the data suggests that we are simply in a standard GCR growth period, which may or may not have been made more dramatic due to the introduction of the welcome TG. However, with the data clearly showing that the growth period began before the introduction of the welcome TG it clearly cannot be attributed solely to said welcome TG.

I've noted multiple times that this could indeed be a coincidence, that the increase in retention following the introduction of Welcome Telegrams could certainly be a part of the normal fluctuation of the size of Feeder regions. I don't think anyone has challenged the assertion that GCR populations fluctuate over time.

That being said, however, the assertion that "the only logical conclusion one can come to is that this is a standard growth period" is patently false. There is no known method of predicting how the populations of Feeders will fluctuate, and thus we have to assume that Feeders would have been equally likely to increase or decrease in size after the introduction of Welcome Telegrams, given the assumption that Welcome Telegrams had no effect on retention rates. This clearly did not happen, and thus the likely conclusion is that Welcome Telegrams do increase retention rates.

However, that is not to say that we can't marginally predict the population of feeders. Looking at the total NS population and matching it up to the graph of the feeders, we can see that Feeder regions generally adhere to the same pattern as the total population. I also showed earlier that the current change does not match up to the population of NS - NS is shrinking while Feeders are growing. Given that additional knowledge, we have further evidence that this change is not part of the normal fluctuation of the populations of Feeders.

We can and should look to the future to see if these retention rates continue, but for now, we have sufficient evidence to say that the most likely theory is currently that Welcome Telegrams significantly increase retention rates.

You are correct that GCR population fluctuation isn't random; it is linked to two specific time periods, the summer and winter holidays. Whilst average GCR population varies with total NS population, within that the trend is for an increase in the periods August-November, a decrease in December-January, an increase in February-May, and a decrease in June-July. Overall GCR population has followed total NS population, and is lower in 2013 than in 2012 by roughly a thousand nations per GCR.

We are in a growth period for GCR's, and as such it would be against the historical trend for GCR population to be falling in October. Should, come December and the arrival of the decline period, GCR population continue to rise contrary to the historical trend then I will agree that the welcome telegram has had a dramatic effect. Until then, growth in the growth period is most logically attributed to the growth period.

[Cerian Quilor]

You're overstating the power of 40 seconds.

But does anyone not click that quickly? Fairly certain for almost all people, the first telegram they'll read (besides the NS one) is going to be their feeder welcome telegram. As any recruiter can tell you, the first one they read is by far the most important - the earlier the better. There's no way the influence of Welcome Telegrams can be denied because every single new nation reads them before even getting their first recruitment telegram. It's huge. 40 is far more than enough time - if all my recruitment telegrams landed that early, the Versutian Federation would probably be triple the size it is now.

Its not about clicking quickly or seeing the welcoming TG first. But 40 seconds isn't enough time to really imprint a decision on anyone.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Its not about clicking quickly or seeing the welcoming TG first. But 40 seconds isn't enough time to really imprint a decision on anyone.

But that's not the point. If I make a nation and start clicking around, I'll see the Welcome TG. Once I finish reading it and go to another page only then do the other TGs start to appear. I've had enough time to read the TG, think about it for as long as I wanted to, then click another link. That's quite a bit of time. It's certainly about seeing the Welcome TG first.

[The Gothic Dominatrix]

Also, I just refounded this nation. It got four TGs within 10 seconds.

-Cerian Quilor