Age of ukcaving posters

[mch]

Reading the thread on Peak Cavern access started by ObviousSpectre, I assumed that he was under 18 years of age and looked at his profile to check. No age given, so I wondered how many others on ukCaving.com were similarly coy about their age (I'm not - I don't care who knows). A random selection of 150 profiles of users who have posted over 100 times (ie 3.3% of registered users - not really a statistically significant figure I know) shows that only 29 (19.3%) give their age, The average age of those 29 was 45.7 years and only 2 were under 30. Not that this really means anything - just idle curiosity on my part!

[Laurie]

You youngsters have too much time on your hands...

[mch]

You youngsters have too much time on your hands...

You may have a point there! 

[ObviousSpectre]

You youngsters have too much time on your hands...

I wish 

[ObviousSpectre]

I do think many people choose not to dislose their age on the forum because it is often of no use to anyone reading their profile and I assume that some don’t want their age to be known by others as it could be used against them in a disagreement.

[droid]

I assume that some don’t want their age to be known by others as it could be used against them in a disagreement.

Only by those that see ad hominem argument and insult as a valid debating technique.

[ObviousSpectre]

I assume that some don’t want their age to be known by others as it could be used against them in a disagreement.

Only by those that see ad hominem argument and insult as a valid debating technique.

Such people do exist

[droid]

I agree. It isn't limited to younger folks though, it's usually anyone that doesn't agree with them unconditionally.


Best way of dealing with them is general hilarity.

[ObviousSpectre]

Best way of dealing with them is general hilarity.

Tried and tested anti-troll strategy 

[markpot]

 Anyone,regardless of age should be encouraged to post up here.The wealth of knowledge and experience on this forum is increadable,hopefully we can encourage the new generation into the rewarding world of caving.
 As a young un getting into it many years ago,we didnt have this access to the wealth of knowledge that is out there,via forums ect.
 Lets use this as a posative to steer em in the right direction, via the right channel's/clubs understanding the best ethics /path to progress. Surely some clubs do family membership?

[ObviousSpectre]

Anyone,regardless of age should be encouraged to post up here.The wealth of knowledge and experience on this forum is increadable,hopefully we can encourage the new generation into the rewarding world of caving.
 As a young un getting into it many years ago,we didnt have this access to the wealth of knowledge that is out there,via forums ect.
 Lets use this as a posative to steer em in the right direction, via the right channel's/clubs understanding the best ethics /path to progress. Surely some clubs do family membership?

Couldn't agree more. As someone who isn't a member of a club nor know anyone who caves already, this forum has been my primary source of caving wisdom and has helped me plan trips and improved my knowledge of the sport.

[markpot]

I notice your based in the west mids,can i suggest you have  word with your olds and get in  touch with pete knight or another provider (no promoting just a suggestion)and get some mentoring.so cool you posted up,good luck 

[Rachel]

I put as little personal information on the internet as I possibly can. If it isn't there, I don't need to worry about it being leaked or sold on.

[markpot]

Good point Rachel,but can we just stick to the topic and help this lad to go caving??

[zomjon]

Markpot, looking at the original post, I would have said that Rachel was exactly answering the original question!

[markpot]

Jon,split from the original post?,i think helping this lad get underground is what we are all here for?,i'm sure he's savvy about online use .

[alastairgott]

only 2 were under 30.

Wonder who they are... 

[JoshW]

only 2 were under 30.

Wonder who they are... 

could have been me!! pick me pick me!

[Subpopulus Hibernia]

I for one have never been afraid to give my true birth year in my signature.

[2xw]

Doesn't sound like they need mentoring, sounds like they just want to go caving unfettered.

There isn't many under 30s on here, we've all gone out to post smashed avacado dinners on our instagram

[Roger W]

Just check out how many forum users

a.  prefer ladders to SRT

b.  prefer rope ladders to these new-fangled wire things

c.  swear by candles as a preferred illuminant

d.  advise the use of Harris tweed for caving wear

etc...

[kay]

A random selection of 150 profiles of users who have posted over 100 times (ie 3.3% of registered users - not really a statistically significant figure I know)

An interesting topic- glad you started this. But you can't wave a statistic under the nose of a statistician and expect them not to go off on a discourse that will have everyone else dying of boredom ... ;-)

The 3.3% isn't the real problem - contrary to popular belief, it's the size of the sample rather than what proportion it is of the population that governs the confidence you can have in the result - a sample of 150 from a population of 100,000 is as good as a sample of 150 from a population of 1000.

There's more effect from whether your sample is truly random or not. You took a sample from those who've posted over 100 times, so that's clearly not a random sample of registered users, so you can't regard your result as a reliable estimate of the average age of registered users. On the other hand, you may have wanted to look at regular posters only, in which case your "population" was posters of over 100 posts. How reliable your average age is as an estimate of the average age of posters of over 100 posts depends on your sampling technique and the reasons behind the very high number of missing values (eg it may be that older posters are less willing than younger ones to reveal their age on a forum, or vice versa) - and of course you can't then extrapolate to the different population of "all regular users".

[2xw]

A random selection of 150 profiles of users who have posted over 100 times (ie 3.3% of registered users - not really a statistically significant figure I know)

An interesting topic- glad you started this. But you can't wave a statistic under the nose of a statistician and expect them not to go off on a discourse that will have everyone else dying of boredom ... ;-)

The 3.3% isn't the real problem - contrary to popular belief, it's the size of the sample rather than what proportion it is of the population that governs the confidence you can have in the result - a sample of 150 from a population of 100,000 is as good as a sample of 150 from a population of 1000.

There's more effect from whether your sample is truly random or not. You took a sample from those who've posted over 100 times, so that's clearly not a random sample of registered users, so you can't regard your result as a reliable estimate of the average age of registered users. On the other hand, you may have wanted to look at regular posters only, in which case your "population" was posters of over 100 posts. How reliable your average age is as an estimate of the average age of posters of over 100 posts depends on your sampling technique and the reasons behind the very high number of missing values (eg it may be that older posters are less willing than younger ones to reveal their age on a forum, or vice versa) - and of course you can't then extrapolate to the different population of "all regular users".

I was thinking of writing something in Rcrawler for this sort of analysis to sample the entire user base when I have spare time (although I'd have to ask Badlad nicely and I suspect they might be able to do this sort of analysis themselves...)

[JoshW]

A random selection of 150 profiles of users who have posted over 100 times (ie 3.3% of registered users - not really a statistically significant figure I know)

An interesting topic- glad you started this. But you can't wave a statistic under the nose of a statistician and expect them not to go off on a discourse that will have everyone else dying of boredom ... ;-)

The 3.3% isn't the real problem - contrary to popular belief, it's the size of the sample rather than what proportion it is of the population that governs the confidence you can have in the result - a sample of 150 from a population of 100,000 is as good as a sample of 150 from a population of 1000.

There's more effect from whether your sample is truly random or not. You took a sample from those who've posted over 100 times, so that's clearly not a random sample of registered users, so you can't regard your result as a reliable estimate of the average age of registered users. On the other hand, you may have wanted to look at regular posters only, in which case your "population" was posters of over 100 posts. How reliable your average age is as an estimate of the average age of posters of over 100 posts depends on your sampling technique and the reasons behind the very high number of missing values (eg it may be that older posters are less willing than younger ones to reveal their age on a forum, or vice versa) - and of course you can't then extrapolate to the different population of "all regular users".

I was thinking of writing something in Rcrawler for this sort of analysis to sample the entire user base when I have spare time (although I'd have to ask Badlad nicely and I suspect they might be able to do this sort of analysis themselves...)

I think 'regular posters' needs a more airtight definition. I'm sure there are people that have posted regularly 5/6 years ago, got a couple of hundred posts, but never done anything since - are they still a regular poster?

[mch]

A random selection of 150 profiles of users who have posted over 100 times (ie 3.3% of registered users - not really a statistically significant figure I know)

An interesting topic- glad you started this. But you can't wave a statistic under the nose of a statistician and expect them not to go off on a discourse that will have everyone else dying of boredom ... ;-)

The 3.3% isn't the real problem - contrary to popular belief, it's the size of the sample rather than what proportion it is of the population that governs the confidence you can have in the result - a sample of 150 from a population of 100,000 is as good as a sample of 150 from a population of 1000.

There's more effect from whether your sample is truly random or not. You took a sample from those who've posted over 100 times, so that's clearly not a random sample of registered users, so you can't regard your result as a reliable estimate of the average age of registered users. On the other hand, you may have wanted to look at regular posters only, in which case your "population" was posters of over 100 posts. How reliable your average age is as an estimate of the average age of posters of over 100 posts depends on your sampling technique and the reasons behind the very high number of missing values (eg it may be that older posters are less willing than younger ones to reveal their age on a forum, or vice versa) - and of course you can't then extrapolate to the different population of "all regular users".

Many thanks kay for your comments. When I started this thread I didn't really expect much of a response so I didn't go into my "methodology" (doesn't really deserve such a description!) in any great depth. If you look at the list of members there are large numbers (I haven't counted them so it's just a subjective observation) who have never posted. I had a look at a random dozen such members and none had filled in age, location or gender so I figured (again subjectively) that this was probably true of most nil posters and that would skew the results if I included them. If people had troubled to post over 100 times then it was likely that they had a genuine interest in the forum (either now or in the past) and the results may (or may not!) be more meaningful.

I have to say that the exercise wasn't intended to be scientific or to produce results from which deductions could be made. I just did it for my own interest and then thought that I should share it on the forum. Pleased that it has attracted comment.