*That large number of guests usually indicates that a search engine, in this case google more than likely, was cacheing the pages. Though in the first days of CS over 4 years ago having 50-60 real people on at any given time was not unusal.
*The reason for no site content lies in a combination of both bad hosting in the past where content was lost and the fact that we have lives.
*There is less discussion on CS for the main reason, as briefly mentioned before, is that the site is four years old. And it was a fusion of a CT and CC site that had a year or so run before that. So after 5 years or so, give or take, you run out of things to analyze and discuss. Been there done that.
*Not to knock your site or anything, because granted I've never really looked at it, but you're not the only ones to feature unique content. You just happen to have webmasters and staffers that have time to work on it. Whereas many of our staffers such as myself, are in college full time and/or have jobs. College > fansite in my opinion.
*At this point I'm not really sure what led me to post any of this. Maybe it was the nasty tones on both sides. The way I see it there aren't many CT/CC sites as it is so theres no reason to be snarky to each other. Especially when mentioning the intelligence level of posts and debates. I only wish the forums hadn't crashed a year or so ago.
At any rate, good luck with your site. 
Nasty tones? No, it was not really nasty. It was simply stating a fact. There is far more in depth analysis here, if one looks over all the articles, the discussions on time-travel, origins of characters, real-world influences. Considering the way ZeaLitY was speaking, it seemed there was a bit of a rivalry between the two forums, so I went over to discern exactly what this Chrono Shock was. I found forums not much different than, say, the Chronicles forums, where most of the discussion seems to be non-Chrono, and what is is generally surface discussions of who does what, and the like. In contrast, the Compendium has discussions ranging from technical to theological to philosophical, and approach it, as I have said before, in a manner befitting the ancient Hellenic philosophers, of open discussion and theorizing. So it's whatever the site intends, I suppose. I was approaching the comment in terms of how analytical the discussions were on both sites (which is ZeaLitY's goal), and I think from that field my comment was fair. I never said that was a bad thing, either, all I said that, as far as the goals of the Compendium go, ZeaLitY does not have much in the way of competition, which he appeared to be fearing.
And, to be honest, what got me a little frustrated when looking over the forums was looking at the name pronounciation thread, and not being able to reply due to the forum necromancy it would constitute. The problem with the thread was that it seemed that one poster (MN or something to that effect) was maintaining wrong assumptions, and it bothered me not to be able to correct them. Namely: 1.) That English is based mostly in Latin. It isn't. Only about 3 or 4%, or something like that, is from Latin. Most is indigenous to the North. 2.) That Latin for its part comes from Hellenic/Greek. It doesn't either. Say, the word 'lord': domino in Latin, anaks in Hellenic; 'king': Basileus or something to that effect in Hellenic, Rex in Latin; 'sword': Gladius in Latin, Skiphos in Hellenic. Anyway, both are Indo-European languages, and share a few words here or there because of their roots, but one is not the decendent of the other, especially since Latin speaking people colonized the Palantine Hill around 900BC, the very time when Hellas/Greece was coming out of its Dark Age. Contact didn't really come in a major way until the expeditionary force of the Macedonian Pyhrrus destroyed the Roman armies, 200 or 300BC. 3.) That Magus is pronounced May-gus in Latin, and should technically be Mah-jus because it comes from Chaldean. Now, I'm certain it is Mah-gus in Latin. Furthermore, I doubt the original was Chaldean, either. The Magi were a Persian group, not Chaldean. The Chaldeans were further west, around Ur, than the Persians - not until later did the Persians move west. I could be wrong, I suppose, but it still gives me cause for doubt, as Belthesar is certainly not a Chaldean name, as he maintains: it is Babylonian.
Anyway, it seemed to me that this was one of the few threads actually analyzing the Chrono world as the Compendium does. Most of the others were just game-topics. So I hope you can excuse me on these grounds.
