PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Graphs: "No More Spike"



Original_Intent
10-26-2007, 11:49 AM
Read about it here:

http://ronpaulgraphs.blogspot.com/2007/10/no-more-spike.html

I think this is a good thing. Look how badly we are doing this week with the offline donations removed! I know people are holding out for November 5th, or this money bomb or that money bomb. We really need to do well this today and this weekend. I hope people who have payday today can help out.

Sometime this weekend, if you can donate anything, please do so. I know November 5th is going to be HUGE! It's very exciting! But we need to keep going on the daily contributions too.

Can you please contribute even 10% of what you are planning on donating on Oct 30th, November 5th or November 11th this weekend? I will do so - in other words I will still keep my full pledge on November 5th, but will also donate 10% of that pledge this weekend.

I hope you can all do the same or better. :)
ashlux
10-26-2007, 12:04 PM
Good, the inclusion of the off-line donations bothered me for exactly the same reasons Dan mentioned.
Taco John
10-26-2007, 01:14 PM
I don't think that November 5th is the problem with the donations at this point in time. I think that the push for $430 k in three days exhasuted the base... JMO.
centure7
10-26-2007, 01:19 PM
I don't think that November 5th is the problem with the donations at this point in time. I think that the push for $430 k in three days exhasuted the base... JMO.

Agreed! I donated more than I thought I could afford during that push.
Patrick Henry
10-26-2007, 01:20 PM
Agreed! I donated more than I thought I could afford during that push.

I donated more than I could afford. :( :D
DrNoZone
10-26-2007, 01:33 PM
Good reasoning. I'm glad he removed the spike.
American
10-26-2007, 01:39 PM
What bullshit, there should be with and without spike, now the graph is in no way connected to the contributions from the main site.

I understand the why, but to simply remove it altogether makes no sense. Oh well I didnt use that site anyways for any real purpose. You can take the whole site down if you want, or just make shit up as you think it should be. Its not in line with the REAL campaign site anyways, right?
DrNoZone
10-26-2007, 01:55 PM
What bullshit, there should be with and without spike, now the graph is in no way connected to the contributions from the main site.

I understand the why, but to simply remove it altogether makes no sense. Oh well I didnt use that site anyways for any real purpose. You can take the whole site down if you want, or just make shit up as you think it should be. Its not in line with the REAL campaign site anyways, right?

haha...man, people here really will complain about ANYTHING. If you didn't use it anyway, why are you bitching?
American
10-26-2007, 01:59 PM
haha...man, people here really will complain about ANYTHING. If you didn't use it anyway, why are you bitching?

because yats my yob mang......:)


No seriously, the totals are not the real totals, only people on this forum know the difference and I think it lets new people that Ron Paul isnt raising the kind of money he really is. Remember people like people who are winning, which we are and the graphs should reflect the real money raised.
NinjaPirate
10-26-2007, 02:02 PM
I thought the $4mil goal include donations both online and offline.
UtahApocalypse
10-26-2007, 02:19 PM
I thought the $4mil goal include donations both online and offline.


It does, thats why the CAMPAIGN is posting offline numbers as well. Creating graphs without the offline is a very inaccurate representation of the campaign goals. I wont use the site again until it matches the campaign.
ashlux
10-26-2007, 02:26 PM
It does, thats why the CAMPAIGN is posting offline numbers as well. Creating graphs without the offline is a very inaccurate representation of the campaign goals. I wont use the site again until it matches the campaign.

We have no idea when the off-line money was brought in, and there is no good guess you can make. Arbitrarily adding off-line donations makes most of the charts extremely inaccurate.

I would like to point out that the donation summary at the upper left does reflect the $430k.

Perhaps think of ronpaulgraphs.com as charting online donations only.
DrNoZone
10-26-2007, 02:27 PM
because yats my yob mang......:)


No seriously, the totals are not the real totals, only people on this forum know the difference and I think it lets new people that Ron Paul isnt raising the kind of money he really is. Remember people like people who are winning, which we are and the graphs should reflect the real money raised.

Well, people on this forum are pretty much the same people looking at RonPaulGraphs...so it's kind of a wash.
dsentell
10-26-2007, 02:27 PM
Both ways are a problem, the amounts definitely need to match.
However that hugh spike was not an accurate representation of the income flow.

The campaign needs to regularly (daily) post the offline donations then there would be no problem (unless, of course, charting by the hour is important to you).
NinjaPirate
10-26-2007, 02:57 PM
Both ways are a problem, the amounts definitely need to match.
However that hugh spike was not an accurate representation of the income flow.

The campaign needs to regularly (daily) post the offline donations then there would be no problem (unless, of course, charting by the hour is important to you).

So the offline donations are exlcuded because they don't represent incoming donations in real time??
Brian Bailey
10-26-2007, 03:02 PM
It's really not a big deal.

He removed the off-line donations because a magical $400K out of nowhere absolutely does distort the graphs and offers an inaccurate portrayal of our progress.

We still have the money in the bank, which is the important thing. It will be reflected on the graph at a later time.
NinjaPirate
10-26-2007, 03:16 PM
Well, put one chart w/the offline $$ and one w/o it!
dsentell
10-26-2007, 03:24 PM
So the offline donations are exlcuded because they don't represent incoming donations in real time??

I have nothing to do with that site, but that is my guess. If you looked at the graphs yesterday with the surge, it made everything really strange.......
cmc
10-26-2007, 04:30 PM
The NY Times article today says that the campaign has "goals of $3 million in October, $4 million in November and $5 million in December."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/26paul.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

A revision?
NinjaPirate
10-26-2007, 04:36 PM
The NY Times article today says that the campaign has "goals of $3 million in October, $4 million in November and $5 million in December."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/26paul.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

A revision?

The campaign said that a few weeks ago.
centure7
10-26-2007, 04:53 PM
Even though the realistic goal for this month is/was three million, even if we ended with the amount we have now, it keeps us well into the game and going strong.