Print

[traveler505]

OK.  Spreadsheet is attached. I was amazed by these numbers.

I'm amazed too. The 700 club number is about what I would have expected, given that I think all of them would be friends & family admitted pre-launch.  I would have expected the numbers from the other early adopters to be considerably lower.

[leporello]

yep thats it, no point in counting members who only joined to give endorsements or anyone else who is not a "Lender" as they could not have ever placed a bid...

OK, but this still shows how many of their half-million members have never done diddlysquat with the site.

[zcommodore]

yep thats it, no point in counting members who only joined to give endorsements or anyone else who is not a "Lender" as they could not have ever placed a bid...

OK, but this still shows how many of their half-million members have never done diddlysquat with the site.

So does this: http://www.ericscc.com/index.php?page=members_by_week

[leporello]

New version of spreadsheet is attached. I'll look into ageing the stats by a month, 3 months, and 6 months.

[zcommodore]

New version of spreadsheet is attached. I'll look into ageing the stats by a month, 3 months, and 6 months.

I'm a bit confused.  It looks to me that each line adds to the previous one.  In other words, the top line includes the number of lenders from each of the lower lines.  Is there any way to make each line separate.  First line lenders 0-100 days, second line 101-200 days, etc. rather than including everyone below for each line.

Or am I misreading it?

[Nontyper]

yep thats it, no point in counting members who only joined to give endorsements or anyone else who is not a "Lender" as they could not have ever placed a bid...

That only changes the member column and doesn't change the point of the query at all...

[leporello]

New version of spreadsheet is attached. I'll look into ageing the stats by a month, 3 months, and 6 months.

I'm a bit confused.  It looks to me that each line adds to the previous one.  In other words, the top line includes the number of lenders from each of the lower lines.  Is there any way to make each line separate.  First line lenders 0-100 days, second line 101-200 days, etc. rather than including everyone below for each line.

Or am I misreading it?

The counts are cumulative, yes, in that the number of members who have been registered at least 100 days will include those who have been registered 200 days and up.

I can change it to be 101-200, 201-300, etc.

[PatriotLender]

This is sort of why I went with the--arbitrary--500-day average loan age, with a minimum of one loan. Couldn't find anything else on LS or Eric's to gauge the direction of these veteran, "pioneer" lenders.

I, too, would love to see your table(s). I'm wagering that the percentage of active vet lenders is still less than 10%.

Peace out.

[leporello]

Here's a version of the same spreadsheet with all the data that were presented before, but with an additional section in which all lenders and other members are not cumulative by time since registration, but discretely stratified into 0-100, 101-200, and so on.

ETA: It does show very nicely that, other than the members of longest standing, the longer one has been around, the less likely one is to have a recent bid.

[zcommodore]

Thanks for the new update, Lep.

I wonder how many lenders may have had a bid in the last month (late Nov., early Dec.) who have stopped lending in just the last week or so.  I also wonder if that would make much of a difference in the numbers.

[leporello]

New update includes, for the stratified data, bidders within the past week.

If enough people are interested, I'll think about ageing these data by a month.

[cubbiesnextyr]

I think this would be an interesting thing to graph each month.  We can run it on the first of each month and add to the graph like fred's graph.  Each 100 or 50 day period or whatever gets put into a bucket and then gets graphed each month so we can see each group slow down in their bidding.

I think someone did something like this back on the old forum and had some neat graphs.  I'll see if I can find them.

[Mark12547]

I think this would be an interesting thing to graph each month.  We can run it on the first of each month and add to the graph like fred's graph.  Each 100 or 50 day period or whatever gets put into a bucket and then gets graphed each month so we can see each group slow down in their bidding.

I think someone did something like this back on the old forum and had some neat graphs.  I'll see if I can find them.

I think the graphs would be of particular interest if we could also annotate them with significant events, e.g., Black Friday, Black Friday 2, new bid advisories, introduction of the additional "additional credit data".

[res2]

yep thats it, no point in counting members who only joined to give endorsements or anyone else who is not a "Lender" as they could not have ever placed a bid...

That only changes the member column and doesn't change the point of the query at all...

It changes the percentages...

[Nontyper]

I think this would be an interesting thing to graph each month.  We can run it on the first of each month and add to the graph like fred's graph.  Each 100 or 50 day period or whatever gets put into a bucket and then gets graphed each month so we can see each group slow down in their bidding.

I think someone did something like this back on the old forum and had some neat graphs.  I'll see if I can find them.

I think the graphs would be of particular interest if we could also annotate them with significant events, e.g., Black Friday, Black Friday 2, new bid advisories, introduction of the additional "additional credit data".

I just don't think that enough lenders/members of Prosper go to the forums (here or .com) to make a difference in these stats... If there was a slow decline in numbers, then you could say there was a "real" sentiment to leave Prosper but that doesn't seem to be the case...  The new advisories and additional credit data make make a difference because it effects everyone, but I think that will just shift the bidding to better loans instead of eliminate bidding at all...   

Just my .02