Post counts

Ric said:
Nothing's set in stone. It's useful to get as many people's opinions as possible.
Click to expand...
OK, thanks for the post. As I said, I can't see why it needed removing. If a few feel they are being got at because their post count is low, then as I've said, stand up and fight your corner. If your post is valid, then there are plenty on here who will back you up - I like to think that the biggest tools have fucked off now. Just view the back up that Little Egg (that Stoke fan) got the other night from Blues on here when another poster decided to have a dig for no real reason - if other posters see an injustice, they'll dive in.
 
SWP's back said:
You might think differently if you posted in the main forum more frequently.

If people are worried about people with high post counts feeling "special", why not have people's post counts up to 5,000 (so we can see if someone's brand new etc as stated) and then anyone with more just show 5,000+. I am personally not arsed about mine in the slightest, the only time I find out how many I have is when some unfunny **** refers to it and calls me a sad ****.
Click to expand...
I thought the stopping of showing post counts was an excellent idea. You should be looking at the content of THAT post, not how many any particularly sad twat (yes, even me!) might have posted before. What's gone has gone, so to speak. However, if Ric/Damo bow to pressure and bring it back (please don't Ric), then that suggestion of yours regarding the 5k line is very good. But I hope they leave it the way it is now.
 
BlueTangerine said:
The reading between the lines bit covers the flappers and WUMs and I wasn't even alluding to that 'acheivment' thing that may or may not exist.. But 5000 and they can't flap? 5000 and they only talk sense? Doesn't make sense to me really.
Click to expand...
1,000 then or the different levels like some forums use instead of post counts.

You watch though mate, any bad loss and this forum has a spike in traffic with plenty of long term members with only a few dozen posts only ever coming on to wum.

I won't lose sleep over it either way, but ric asked for feedback and I was giving some.
 
jimharri said:
I thought the stopping of showing post counts was an excellent idea. You should be looking at the content of THAT post, not how many any particularly sad twat (yes, even me!) might have posted before. What's gone has gone, so to speak. However, if Ric/Damo bow to pressure and bring it back (please don't Ric), then that suggestion of yours regarding the 5k line is very good. But I hope they leave it the way it is now.
Click to expand...
Fucking newbie are you.... ;-)
 
Can't we have stars then? A star for every 10,000 posts........
 
DiscoSteve said:
Avatars is another related subject - BM is unusual in not allowing them and I understand in the past when horsepower was a problem why you didn't have them - but 99% of the t'internet forums do
Click to expand...
Is there a more hideous thing on forums than avatars and signatures ? If you want that, there are forums available.

I'm in the couldn't care less camp on posts counts, and I'm not interested in "like" buttons or similar either, leave them on facebook/twitter where they belong.
 
cleavers said:
Is there a more hideous thing on forums than avatars and signatures ? If you want that, there are forums available.

I'm in the couldn't care less camp on posts counts, and I'm not interested in "like" buttons or similar either, leave them on facebook/twitter where they belong.
Click to expand...
Like
 
SWP's back said:
Like
Click to expand...
FB-LikeButton-online-1024-copy.png
 
cleavers said:
Is there a more hideous thing on forums than avatars and signatures ? If you want that, there are forums available.

I'm in the couldn't care less camp on posts counts, and I'm not interested in "like" buttons or similar either, leave them on facebook/twitter where they belong.
Click to expand...

I agree virtually, although, I see the location thing as a sort of 'signature'
I only use mine as an escape mechanism to worm out of anything ridiculous I might post. Fortunately it's always after 10pm, except when it's exactly 10pm.. so I only have to culpable for 1 second a day. The psychological relief is immense. I recommend it.
 
malg said:
Yes, but looking at the posts that count, it appears that the decision has been made. Personally, I can't see why it makes a difference - as for getting stick for not having a high post count, man the fuck up and fight your corner.
Click to expand...

Not everyone on here is a ten year old though. Most people just read the forums. It's hard enough reading facebook posts without putting up with the wums. I've already lost track of most of the 'obvious' piss-takers.
 
Kippax. said:
Well thats the biggest contradiction I have ever seen. So we remove post counts so members can't dictate if they are rags by the post counts, but we can because, we can click on the username?

wow!
Click to expand...

The biggest contradiction you have ever seen? Wow, indeed.
 
-nibz- said:
Not everyone on here is a ten year old though. Most people just read the forums. It's hard enough reading facebook posts without putting up with the wums. I've already lost track of most of the 'obvious' piss-takers.
Click to expand...
Wums on Facebook? What ever next.
 
Am I missing something here?

Surely you can identify new posters by the the 'joined date' which is still clearly visible. If a Rag or WUM is going to have a go over a specific match/transfer/player/or whatever it's unlikely they're going to join in August and wait till December make their first posts and cause grief.

Why is the post count more important than the joined date when identifying Rags or WUM's? I'd be genuinely interested to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top