Discussion Why the NYT was only able to verify 45 ctbs from this site

[Cheza_mus]

I just wanted to ask why the NYT guys were able to only identify 45 ctbs and not others?

 

[Circles]

I just wanted to ask why the NYT guys were able to only identify 45 ctbs and not others?

Most likely cause of loved ones speaking out about it, obituaries posted on here or elsewhere, or whatever other factors. Though they did also said that the numbers could be much higher and I concur. I'd say atleast 300-1000 members and there's no telling the amount of people who weren't members but were lurkers and only used the info to ctb. So who knows.
Edit: now thinking about it maybe 100 to 500 which seems more reasonable. Idk.

 

[Chinaski]

I just wanted to ask why the NYT guys were able to only identify 45 ctbs and not others?

It's plausible that the number of actual ctbs ftom this site is not particularly high - a goodbye thread/post is not in itself evidence or confirmation of a ctb, though there are probably a lot of people who come here, get the pph, then leave and ctb without anyone being aware they were here.

 

[Noctis]

I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's suffering or pain, but a lot of goodbye/farewell threads I've read don't seem believable. Just the things they say or the timeline they post or little other things make me think they aren't actually trying to CTB, and they just want to read all the warm wishes from everyone else.

I will absolutely never say that in someone's thread, but I don't think the number of threads accurately shows the number of suicides.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's suffering or pain, but a lot of goodbye/farewell threads I've read don't seem believable. Just the things they say or the timeline they post or little other things make me think they aren't actually trying to CTB, and they just want to read all the warm wishes from everyone else.

I will absolutely never say that in someone's thread, but I don't think the number of threads accurately shows the number of suicides.

I think there is a general rule to ban people after goodbye/farewall for this exact reason with option to request unban. I'm sure people realised they can write a good post instead and get warm wishes though.

 

[Myl]

I don't think it would be that easy to "verify" them.
Probably the 45 "indentified" ctb's are just the well known media stories and ones that were already confirmed dead on here. Maybe a few where the family members have contacted them.

Really it seems like most of the time there would be no true way to 100% confirm it.
Suicides are rarely reported on and I doubt most people just leave their phone or pc switched on SS when they kill themselves.

 

[Chinaski]

I don't think it would be that easy to "verify" them.
Probably the 45 "indentified" ctb's are just the well known media stories and ones that were already confirmed dead on here. Maybe a few where the family members have contacted them.

Really it seems like most of the time there would be no true way to 100% confirm it.
Suicides are rarely reported on and I doubt most people just leave their phone or pc switched on SS when they kill themselves.

Suicides always lead to an inquest which is held in the public domain in the UK, usually this is the point upon which they are reported - I'm not sure about elsewhere but here this information would be accessible to a reporter.

 

[Pure]

I just wanted to ask why the NYT guys were able to only identify 45 ctbs and not others?

Lack of internet safety. People recycling usernames which links to websites where real life info is shared, people sharing the actual city they're in, and people sharing the methods they use along with their ages. That's enough to ask around at coroner's offices or police departments and get the real name of people.