# Style Forum has more posts. Why?



## gng8 (Aug 5, 2005)

Please move this if I put it in the wrong place. 

Like many of us I read and enjoy both fora regularly. I happened to notice the statistics that both AAAC and SF post on their sites. AAAC has more members, more active members and more threads but SF has more than 100,000 more posts. Any speculation on the reason?


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

I'll take quality over quantity anyday

MrR


----------



## voxsartoria (Nov 21, 2006)

*Is not Style Forum a bit broader?*



gng8 said:


> Any speculation on the reason?


For example, their forum on Streetwear and Denim has no analog here.

(That reminds me: my mind is getting quite dizzy at how much denim I could aquire with $100K. I will sleep soundly tonight!)

Also, didn't AACC lose some threads from a software issue?

Regards,
Bill


----------



## Mattdeckard (Mar 11, 2004)

Different style.


----------



## ndemeis (Oct 2, 2006)

I'm a convert from Styleforum. I still read both but i find this forum to be more helpful. Styleforum to me has gotten very sale oriented as well there seems to be a more casual style with their focus on streetwear. Also i don't notice as much brand bias here but only time will tell. Both forums are great but serve different purposes to me.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Style Forum has more active community fora, and also a much more active sales forum. Keep in mind that when SF went down some time back months and months of posts were lost so the gap may actually be bigger.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I think the percentage of short and snappy replies on SF is much higher than here, where we tend go more in-depth...or be more verbose and prolix, depending on your point of view.


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

... and SF has a lot more spammers, trolls and the likes.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

acidicboy said:


> ... and SF has a lot more spammers, trolls and the likes.


Yeah, but the trolls here *cough*Fogey*cough* are much more active.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*The Style Forum...*



JLibourel said:


> I think the percentage of *short and snappy replies on SF is much higher than here*, where we tend go more in-depth...or be more verbose and prolix, depending on your point of view.


Exactly... and more younger crowd.:icon_smile_big:

Can someone tell me please who is the founder and how it was found?

...from paris​


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> Yeah, but the trolls here *cough*Fogey*cough* are much more active.


not anymore it seems

MrR


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

A lot of it is superfluous posting. I’m on a women’s forum and I have to wade through 10 pages of ‘Omigosh’ ‘Totally’ ‘Like’ before I can find any real concrete information. Further, one of AAAC forum rules is that we should keep superfluous posts to a minimum. It’s nice to have a hoot about stuff but on that women’s forum, it’s quite tedious to read, I’m hardly ever on it.


----------



## neyus (Jan 12, 2005)

more trolls, also I think its a case of quality versus quantity.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

I'll disagree with the comments on quantity versus quality, considering how many posters participate on both forums. No need to bash SF.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> I'll disagree with the comments on quantity versus quality, considering how many posters participate on both forums. No need to bash SF.


+1

Alan is partly right that it has to do with the all the other fora that are far more active on SF than here (with the exception perhaps of the AA Trad forum but I have no idea as I never visit it). The SF community and sales fora tend to generate more dialogue-like posting with short responses that may account for the discrepancy.

That said, the key variable raised in the OP is the ratio of members (or threads) to posts, which is much larger here (i.e. more members but fewer posts). This can only be explained by SF having posters that are much more active (and more multiple-page threads) than AAAC, which has more lurking members and occasional posters than a core group of high post count regulars that can be found on SF. Perhaps the younger and student demographic of SF partly explains the higher post counts.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Who cares? I mean, I am sure the Style Forum is a great place, but AAAC has me.

:icon_cheers:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I like Style Forum. I post here mostly because I believe I fit in better here. Also, I don't have time to spend reading and participating in both forums. (I participate on two other boards, too.)


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

SF and AAAC are both great. Together they encompass the full range of better men's fashion.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

DocHolliday said:


> No need to bash SF.


No, no need to bash SF at all. The fact of the matter is that AA and SF have a symbiotic relationship.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I like both forums as well. Checking both deal sections can yield some finds. SF has some real shoe nuts, that's for sure. I mean that as a compliment of course.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> I'll disagree with the comments on quantity versus quality, considering how many posters participate on both forums. No need to bash SF.


I didnt mean to bash SF as I'm a member there as well, its just an observation I guess; 10 AAAC responses to a post seem to contain as much info as pages do on SF. Neither is bad, just different. There also seems to be more respect amongst members here than there.

MrR


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Might be threads like this...

(dopey?)


----------



## gng8 (Aug 5, 2005)

The replies caused me to go to two places I don't normally visit--AAAC Trad Forum and SF Streetwear and Denim. Both demonstrate why the internet is so great. People with all sorts of information can share it with others who care about the same subject. (Off topic, it is hard to believe that I got my first computer 11 years ago and was really excited to be able to buy a 14.4 modem.) 

In rereading the various posts, I notice more profanity on SF and longer replies on AAAC. I like both but AAAC is my home.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Which website would Chuck Norris read?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Kav said:


> Which website would Chuck Norris read?


Chuck Norris knows everything that is or will be on any website.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Chuck Norris invented The Web.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Take THAT SF! I empty my bladder on you from a great altitude. 3 posts utterly without merit of redeeming social value or import about Chuck Norris. Ha ha, wait till I get warmed up. ( sprays myself with Guelain Imperiale and restores composure and rational.)


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> I didnt mean to bash SF as I'm a member there as well, its just an observation I guess; 10 AAAC responses to a post seem to contain as much info as pages do on SF. Neither is bad, just different. There also seems to be more respect amongst members here than there.
> 
> MrR


I hear you. I used to share this sentiment, but the longer I've stuck around both places, the less convinced I've become. Now, it almost seems to run in cycles ... AA will have a bunch of engaging, informative threads, then slow down ... Then the same thing will happen over at SF. I've gotten to the point where I hesitate to make sweeping statements about the forums at all.

The only real conclusions I'd feel comfortable drawing off the top of my head are that SF tends to be more picture oriented, that SF tends to be "chattier," and that there seems to be more consistent interest in/discussion of high-end shoes (and streetwear, of course).


----------

