ATTN: ALL MEMBERS, NEW & OLD
- Thread starter Rod
- Start date
CigarStone
For once, knowledge is making me poor!
X2.....Plus , as often as "search is your friend" is used, locking old posts would prevent them from coming up in a legitimate search.
Post counter...............I know of no useful purpose served by it......JMHO
JHolmes763
Drinkin' the koolaid
Contests?
You can still read a locked thread, you just can't post in it anymore.
tomthirtysix
Wishing I was as cool as Phil
A football board I post on has a feature on older threads.... if you try to post in one that has been inactive for 120, after you hit "Submit" a warning comes up at the top of the reply box. It says something to the effect, "THis thread has not been active for 120. Are you sure you want to post here?"
Yeah, it would not keep the thread down, necessarily, but it would make people think twice before bumpong old threads. Not sure if it's an option Rod could look into.
Yeah, it would not keep the thread down, necessarily, but it would make people think twice before bumpong old threads. Not sure if it's an option Rod could look into.
Zeebra
Daddy still loves Padrón!
I think posting a picture of a nutsack without warning should be cause enough for an account suspension. Damn you Matt, I just lost my breakfast.
We know your mouth started watering. Oh shit, that was a secret, my bad.
Blue Dragon
Can't Re-Member
For me, most of the time no. However there are times when it does seem to be helpful. I jump in and check things out, but don't have my fingers on the pulse of the board anymore. I have used the post counter to compare when someone has joined CP and what their post count is; it seems to be a good measure of people full of hot air or just like to hear themselves post. I have also found it helpful when looking at a person's profile and seeing that 54% of their posts are in the Buy/Sell/Trade forum.
Just my $.02
Zeebra
Daddy still loves Padrón!
MilesMingusMonk
Breaking Wind Master
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Messages
- 3,549
Instead of implementing unnecessary changes that will change the functionality of the forum, why don't the usual suspects simply respect Rod's wishes?
Locking threads is a poor "fix" - there are legitimate needs for resurrecting older threads - posting updates on asshats/situations gone bad, updating cigar reference threads, "topping" core informational threads for reference, unique cigar reviews, etc.
Locking threads is a poor "fix" - there are legitimate needs for resurrecting older threads - posting updates on asshats/situations gone bad, updating cigar reference threads, "topping" core informational threads for reference, unique cigar reviews, etc.
You mean like Bfreebern? His post count is a good indication of "hot air" posts.
I'm actually opposite in "real life", ya fugger. Pretty quite, but I guess online I'm just a Chatty Kathy.
Matt R
That's #1 Member to you. :)
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,988
Because I am the boss here, not Todd.... :whistling:
Here are some points to consider regarding post count. It seems to me that people perceive there to be two main functions of the post counter.
1. Rough quantitative indicator of a member's participation on the forum.
2. Incentive for those members who place value in their own post count to post content that is of low value.
These two are related, but in my view, the relationship is not as direct as one might think nor is it as pervasive as one might fear. First, post count IS an indicator of quantity. That point is not arguable. What is at issue, I believe, is meaningful participation.
It's too rough a standard to say that such and such a mode of posting is always undesirable. That substitutes coercive control for the development of personal judgment and I think you all know where I stand on that issue. One should definitely pause and think before hitting the post button. But one should not be made to feel that posting is a "bad thing." This is not inconsistent with the second half of the aphorism "read more, post less."
The more one posts and the more varied contexts and diverse issues on which one posts serves an important function of helping others to form a fuller, more accurate perception of who is behind the screen name. I just recently had a conversation with Devil Doc on this exact point and the question was how does one ever really get to know another online member? Without facial cues, without the opportunity to hear inflections in the voice, or body language cues, one's body of writings becomes the only data available. And confidence in how well we know someone increases the more we interact, write, and read.
As for point 2, junk-posters no matter how whorish eventually fade because people will stop paying attention to them. Take a look at the list of top posters. Are there any active members on that top 20 who are not considered contributing, solid members with worthwhile things to say?
I think there is another issue at play and that is the concern that post count could be perceived as a proxy for seniority, legitimacy, or any of the other things that we believe should be earned through participation. On that account, so could date of registration and member number. If the leveling of status is a goal of eliminating the post counter, then I would argue that join date and member numbers should be hidden as well. That would be the logical extension the concept. Let everyone earn their merit every day through words and deeds.
But wait. That's the way things happen even now. ???
My recommendation? Leave everything as it is and deal with offenders on a case by case basis. That is the solution I believe would be the least disruptive. We know the rules and it's up to us to make the best decision and, since this is a member moderated forum, our fellow members to remind us of the right path.
Wilkey
1. Rough quantitative indicator of a member's participation on the forum.
2. Incentive for those members who place value in their own post count to post content that is of low value.
These two are related, but in my view, the relationship is not as direct as one might think nor is it as pervasive as one might fear. First, post count IS an indicator of quantity. That point is not arguable. What is at issue, I believe, is meaningful participation.
It's too rough a standard to say that such and such a mode of posting is always undesirable. That substitutes coercive control for the development of personal judgment and I think you all know where I stand on that issue. One should definitely pause and think before hitting the post button. But one should not be made to feel that posting is a "bad thing." This is not inconsistent with the second half of the aphorism "read more, post less."
The more one posts and the more varied contexts and diverse issues on which one posts serves an important function of helping others to form a fuller, more accurate perception of who is behind the screen name. I just recently had a conversation with Devil Doc on this exact point and the question was how does one ever really get to know another online member? Without facial cues, without the opportunity to hear inflections in the voice, or body language cues, one's body of writings becomes the only data available. And confidence in how well we know someone increases the more we interact, write, and read.
As for point 2, junk-posters no matter how whorish eventually fade because people will stop paying attention to them. Take a look at the list of top posters. Are there any active members on that top 20 who are not considered contributing, solid members with worthwhile things to say?
I think there is another issue at play and that is the concern that post count could be perceived as a proxy for seniority, legitimacy, or any of the other things that we believe should be earned through participation. On that account, so could date of registration and member number. If the leveling of status is a goal of eliminating the post counter, then I would argue that join date and member numbers should be hidden as well. That would be the logical extension the concept. Let everyone earn their merit every day through words and deeds.
But wait. That's the way things happen even now. ???
My recommendation? Leave everything as it is and deal with offenders on a case by case basis. That is the solution I believe would be the least disruptive. We know the rules and it's up to us to make the best decision and, since this is a member moderated forum, our fellow members to remind us of the right path.
Wilkey
MilesMingusMonk
Breaking Wind Master
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Messages
- 3,549
2,882 visible keystrokes. I edit before I post, you know.
But I agree with you, Kirk. Leave it be.
Wilkey
Someone want to translate Wilkey's post for me?
Like MMM said, locking threads is not an option, I don't believe in doing this. With the large increase of new membership recently, I felt we needed to touch upon this point again.
As far as the post count display goes, I'm all for removing it...
Like MMM said, locking threads is not an option, I don't believe in doing this. With the large increase of new membership recently, I felt we needed to touch upon this point again.
As far as the post count display goes, I'm all for removing it...
preembargo
Sleeping not so peacefully
What Wilkey was trying to say is that post count is not the problem but MattR has a low sperm count and that’s kind of a problem for him. :sign: