Suggestion: Posts

[MonkeyCatcher]

Kenny - Then shouldn't they be referring back to the original poster rather than coupling Stewart's ideas with those remarks?

And this post occured before Rogue's:

What's the purpose of segregating based on who posts where, and how often?

 

[Jemima Aslana]

Okay, Kenny may just have found the points people object to but other than that, great post, MC.

I have always been of the opinion that the 'off-topic' area of a forum can never have a claim to be part of the post count. Why not? Because it is *drum roll* Off-topic! It's fantastic, no?

It has nothing to do with books and who reads and who doesn't, this opinion of mine goes on all the forums I visit, one of the few places that actually have such seperation is the Candlekeep forums iirc. I see no problem with the principle that people only gain postcount by posting something in the fora that are relevant to the board's overall topic.

And without pointing any fingers and hoping I won't offend anyone I'll say this: when someone objects to the aforementioned principle I always start wondering about these questions: "How many posts does said person have?" If many, I'll conclude that the perceived rank that comes with many posts means something to them. If few, I'll conclude that they intend to acquite that perceived rank asap. "What has said person posted?" If spammy stuff, well then I might even go so far as to conclude that a person may only be posting for the sake of posting and not for the sake of saying something.

I can never help but wonder at these things, and especially when things get heated (as they seem to have a tendency to do these days) do I wonder. Being an Admin on another forum I have considered and tried many different spam and nonsense-deterrants, some work better than others. But most of all I find that removing post count from the fora where threads have a tendency to run into a 2 digit number of pages (mostly off-topics) actually does curb some of the spamming going on. Those people who simply have fun, will continue to do so and that's all well and good and peace be with it, and the trolls and spammers will move on to other pastures because they can't get away with upping their post counts without being banned for being off-topic for the umpteenth time spite of warnings.

There is nothing elitist about this approach it simply has to do with keeping the forum on-topic.

 

[SFG75]

If you want to see the biggest drop-off in members from this place, go ahead and get rid of general chat. We have over 4,000 members and general chat is where a lot of people participate. If you just leave the book threads to comment upon, the crickets will soon inhabit the place. This, inspite of the fact that we only have about 20-30 people who are active members. I don't know about anyone else, but I do enjoy the banter and lighthearted conversation with others from time to time. I have started my own topics in the magazine, non-fiction, and fiction sections. At the same time, not everyone reads the same kind of authors, let alone individual books. So if you post about freakonomics, how many people can seriously participate in that? That is just asking for this place to become a graveyard in no time. I post here a lot and then look for threads that interest me. This place would be awfuly quiet without g.c.

I don't doubt that people join this forum to talk about books(hence the name) and authors. I also don't doubt that part of the whole experience is getting to know other members of the forum and the way that you do that is through interaction on general discussion. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I have had the time of my life on this board. There are some real great people here and I look forward to checking in at TBF every evening. I'm not certain about where elitism fits in and that kind of thing, but I do know that if you just want a select group, get rid of general chat and force everyone to post on threads on people like....say....Nabokov.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Excellent post, Jemima. I agree with every word, especially with the comments about people spamming to boost post counts.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

@ SFG - As MC pointed out in one of her previous posts: this is not about getting rid of General Chat. It's about not letting it have any influence on the post count.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

If you want to see the biggest drop-off in members from this place, go ahead and get rid of general chat. We have over 4,000 members and general chat is where a lot of people participate. If you just leave the book threads to comment upon, the crickets will soon inhabit the place. This, inspite of the fact that we only have about 20-30 people who are active members. I don't know about anyone else, but I do enjoy the banter and lighthearted conversation with others from time to time. I have started my own topics in the magazine, non-fiction, and fiction sections. At the same time, not everyone reads the same kind of authors, let alone individual books. So if you post about freakonomics, how many people can seriously participate in that? That is just asking for this place to become a graveyard in no time. I post here a lot and then look for threads that interest me. This place would be awfuly quiet without g.c.

I don't doubt that people join this forum to talk about books(hence the name) and authors. I also don't doubt that part of the whole experience is getting to know other members of the forum and the way that you do that is through interaction on general discussion. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I have had the time of my life on this board. There are some real great people here and I look forward to checking in at TBF every evening. I'm not certain about where elitism fits in and that kind of thing, but I do know that if you just want a select group, get rid of general chat and force everyone to post on threads on people like....say....Nabokov.

This is seriously bugging me. Can a mod /please/ split posts above removing general chat totally and put it into another thread because this is /not/ what this thread is about.

 

[Zolipara]

Most forums do not have postcount in their general chat/spam area. Whats the big deal anyway. Who cares about postcount?

Starting to feel like too many are just browsing the forum looking for something to object to.

 

[SFG75]

This is seriously bugging me. Can a mod /please/ split posts above removing general chat totally and put it into another thread because this is /not/ what this thread is about.

Yeah, but it is related to the topic and it was mentioned. At the same time, I have no problem with limiting the post-count thing. I don't know who aspires to be first on the post count thing, but perhaps there is someone who lives for that. At the same time, why does it bother a person that it is counted?

 

[Ice]

General Chat is important to this forum. It's popularity, and importance to the forum shows in the amount of people who post there.

Yes it is a popular part of the forum, but it is not the forums main focus - which is the point being made. I do not think getting rid of General Chat is the point at hand and I for one would like it to remain. The point being raised is, I feel, a valid one. It would not bother me of the post count did not include General Chat, people end up guaging for themselves whose opinions are useful.

Post count is not an indication of quality. I post on a forum where there are over 7500 members and a large number of those are active. Now I can count on one hand the people whose opinions I respect. We have several users who spam the boards for want of a different word, giving out meaningless advice (I am not talking frivilous advice here - I am talking about advice that could be potentially harmful). Experienced posters know to ignore them, but new users do not - they see a high post count, assume the person knows what they are talking about and PM them for advice. The point being made here is that new users could see who to approach for advice based upon who are inclined to post in the Book related forums.

If off-topic posts find there way into those forums, it's up to the mods to take care of that. They can delete and warn offending members. It's also up the the members to alert the mods to such issues.

Yet when we are alerted and action is taken people choose to 'comment' on that stating it is unnecessary. Spam contained in General Chat is fine, it is when it takes over the rest of the forum that people begin to object.

 

[SFG75]

@ SFG - As MC pointed out in one of her previous posts: this is not about getting rid of General Chat. It's about not letting it have any influence on the post count.

And why does that matter?

 

[Kenny Shovel]

Kenny - Then shouldn't they be referring back to the original poster rather than coupling Stewart's ideas with those remarks?

Yes, the thread is about the post count. You asked why people were talking about elitism and getting rid of General Chat, I tried to point you to the posts that might have started that. Although looking again, Stewarts "talk inane drivel" comment in the OP may have given the boat a push away from "Post Count" island and into lake snobby.

Personally I don’t mind if the post count is restricted to certain sub-forums or is got rid of altogether. As long as I’m left to live a life of peaceful religious fulfilment and occasionally look up porn, I’m cool.

 

[SFG75]

So we need to limit the post count to identify(key word as to the ultimate goal of the proposal) who posts about Nabokov and who has the nerve to post about "inane" things on general chat. Sounds very pretentious to me.

 

[Ice]

So we need to limit the post count to identify(key word as to the ultimate goal of the proposal) who posts about Nabokov and who has the nerve to post about "inane" things on general chat. Sounds very pretentious to me.

I guess we are seeing this in different lights. Personally I do not feel that basing the post count on book related matters could be classed as being pretentious. I merely feel it is identifying those users who post on the main focus of the forum ehich could be useful if a new user wants advice. General Chat would still remain but the posts would just not be counted.

 

[SFG75]

Kenny's post on the second page(or is it the first?) of this thread clearly outlines the *snobbery* nature of this proposal. When you have general statements about "identifying" mixed with the words of "books" and "inane posts"--that pretty much sums it up. If it were a criminal case, it would be like stumbling upon the body, the smoking gun, and the aggressor soaked in the victim's blood. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

[Peder]

General Chat would still remain, the posts would just not be counted - how is that pretentious?

Maybe by suggesting that only the one kind of post earns 'credit' and 'counts' while the other kind does not?

 

[SFG75]

That way, we can get a better idea of those that are interested in discussing books on a book forum and those who are here to talk inane drivel.

Yep, I'm sorry-there was absolutely no basis in my believing that this proposal had anything less than noble intentions.

 

[Ice]

Not at all. It would merely enable users identify who may be able to help them with regards to book related subjects (which is the main focus of this forum). Discussions on the weather (for example) are perfectly valid, however they are not going to help a new user who has signed up looking for opinions on a particular book (which is the reason the vast majortity of users sign up).

I am not bothered either way, I do not tend to place much stock in the post count. I know whose opinions I respect (like I do on all forums I frequent) but then I have been here for a while.

 

[Ice]

Maybe by suggesting that only the one kind of post earns 'credit' and 'counts' while the other kind does not?

Personally I do not feel that the Post Count is there to earn 'credit' as it were. The post count identifies those users that post regularly. I cannot see a problem identifying users that post on book related subjects as oppose to other non-book related topics seeing as this is the main focus of the forum.

 

[SFG75]

Not at all. It would merely enable users identify who may be able to help them with regards to book related subjects (which is the main focus of this forum). Discussions on the weather (for example) are perfectly valid, however they are not going to help a new user who has signed up looking for opinions on a particular book (which is the reason the vast majortity of users sign up).

I am not bothered either way, I do not tend to place much stock in the post count anyway. I know whose opinions I respect but then I have been here for a while.

This has been a problem? Someone has sought help and hasn't found it due to asking the wrong person?

On top of that, how is this statement NOT pretentious?

That way, we can get a better idea of those that are interested in discussing books on a book forum and those who are here to talk inane drivel.

I have no irons in the fire on this subject, but I'm just bothered at the presumptuous attitude that got it started. Kenny posted(and I have posted twice now) a few statements that give away the true nature of this proposal. If a person would allow someone to call them "inane" and believe that they are doing some public good out of doing so, well, by all means, feel free to believe they have humble intentions. With that being said-I'll now bow out and go on posting like I have been.

 

[Peder]

I think the first two posts in this thread immediately pointed to the two issues being discussed, even if some say not. And the post count is actually a 'count,' which for better or worse can be perceived in different ways by different people. I think that not counting posts with 'inane drivel,' together with the clear position stated in the second post of the thread, is quite reasonably construed as an attempt to minimize General Chat and other so called inane drivel. Whether one wants to do that or not is certainly arguable, but it seems pretty clear that is at least part of what the discussion is about.
Peder