PragueBlue
Well-Known Member
Spot on. That people are judging posters by the number of their posts, rather than their contributions is a pretty good reason to get rid of the post count.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Post counts
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Spot on. That people are judging posters by the number of their posts, rather than their contributions is a pretty good reason to get rid of the post count.
Rascal
El Presidente
They stick out like sore fucking thumbs mate as well as previous banned users or folk just on the wum.
Why shouldn't they get the stick they deserve?
Not my site or my decision but its a bollox decision, pandering to a few.
More banned user paranoia. You really want too give it up. Moderators can find them. Thats stick you deserve and i dont know and dont care what your post count is.
I applaud the decision wholeheartedly and i called for it years ago as i previously said. It stops idiotic spamming for a start and it helps people integrate as no "[post count" hierarchy exists. Posts carry a more equal weight as people will look at what is written rather than be impressed by the fact some daft fucker has acquired a zillion posts.
Good move.
Frankly, the arguments put forward in this thread in favour of keeping post counts visible are exactly the reasons why they shouldn't be.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the majority who seem to be against this move those with very high post counts (Rascal excepted)?
I wonder why this, because it could be construed as wanting to keep this hierarchy that most posters think isn't the best thing for the board as a whole.
Frankly, the arguments put forward in this thread in favour of keeping post counts visible are exactly the reasons why they shouldn't be.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the majority who seem to be against this move those with very high post counts (Rascal excepted)?
I wonder why this, because it could be construed as wanting to keep this hierarchy that most posters think isn't the best thing for the board as a whole.
PragueBlue
Well-Known Member
Personally I think the forum has already become really disjointed and a less pleasurable read since the beginning of June. And this is just another nail in the coffin for me as reader and poster.
Why do you think it is going be a less pleasurable read if there are no post counts?
Personally I have found the forums more pleasurable since the change over from the old layout and I can't see having no post count displayed affecting it negatively at all. In fact it might give some people on low post counts, more confidence to join in and contribute to the forum without having their views disparaged based on the number of posts they have made.
BillyShears
Well-Known Member
More banned user paranoia. You really want too give it up. Moderators can find them. Thats stick you deserve and i dont know and dont care what your post count is.
I applaud the decision wholeheartedly and i called for it years ago as i previously said. It stops idiotic spamming for a start and it helps people integrate as no "[post count" hierarchy exists. Posts carry a more equal weight as people will look at what is written rather than be impressed by the fact some daft fucker has acquired a zillion posts.
Nobody is impressed by peoples post counts. That's as much a myth as the idea that every new user is a rag. To me it seems more than a little odd to not acknowledge that post counts do serve a purpose in terms of knowing how to react to a posters POV. It's neither controversial nor problematic IMO.
Regarding what @blueinsa said, it will actually HELP in terms of finding problematic users.
Many times people get away with stuff because they've stuck a few posts in off topic so are seen as legit. In fact all of the known "invasions" we've had from Red Issue and places in the past have come from users who build up by posting shit in off topic or general football then all "invade" at once with a larger post count. Yes, people are genuinely that pathetic.
One of the good things about removing post counts is that it will hopefully boost reports based on content of posts rather than post counts, which really is an issue and 99% of reports are about people with low post counts. This means that people will be judged on what they say regardless if they have 10 or 10,000 posts which will allow us to clean out the wums much more efficiently
Many times people get away with stuff because they've stuck a few posts in off topic so are seen as legit. In fact all of the known "invasions" we've had from Red Issue and places in the past have come from users who build up by posting shit in off topic or general football then all "invade" at once with a larger post count. Yes, people are genuinely that pathetic.
One of the good things about removing post counts is that it will hopefully boost reports based on content of posts rather than post counts, which really is an issue and 99% of reports are about people with low post counts. This means that people will be judged on what they say regardless if they have 10 or 10,000 posts which will allow us to clean out the wums much more efficiently
BillyShears
Well-Known Member
Regarding what @blueinsa said, it will actually HELP in terms of finding problematic users.
Many times people get away with stuff because they've stuck a few posts in off topic so are seen as legit. In fact all of the known "invasions" we've had from Red Issue and places in the past have come from users who build up by posting shit in off topic or general football then all "invade" at once with a larger post count. Yes, people are genuinely that pathetic.
One of the good things about removing post counts is that it will hopefully boost reports based on content of posts rather than post counts, which really is an issue and 99% of reports are about people with low post counts. This means that people will be judged on what they say regardless if they have 10 or 10,000 posts which will allow us to clean out the wums much more efficiently
Does this imply that the decision is final and that post counts won't be coming back? My understanding based on what Ric has posted was that the situation was more fluid than that.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,600
Changing my location after every post is a pain in the arse.
Gaylord du Bois
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 30,148
- Location
- Great Umbrage.
- Team supported
- Glory Hunting Blue. Was Chelsea.
What's happened?
Does this imply that the decision is final and that post counts won't be coming back? My understanding based on what Ric has posted was that the situation was more fluid than that.
No, just an opinion. It's been banded about as a discussion in the mod forum before but I didn't even know it was happening until I logged on this morning and saw they'd gone. Thought I'd broke the forum!
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,600
As I said before, if a consensus is wanted, why not run a poll rather than have 6 people repeat their points?Good move.
Frankly, the arguments put forward in this thread in favour of keeping post counts visible are exactly the reasons why they shouldn't be.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the majority who seem to be against this move those with very high post counts (Rascal excepted)?
I wonder why this, because it could be construed as wanting to keep this hierarchy that most posters think isn't the best thing for the board as a whole.
Happy Feet
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 2,132
Some people need to get a life.
Gaylord du Bois
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 30,148
- Location
- Great Umbrage.
- Team supported
- Glory Hunting Blue. Was Chelsea.
Feet playing you up?Some people need to get a life.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
I believe the mods still vet vet new posters before allowing that post on forum presumably to filter out those who may be 'suspect'.
Not sure of number but in my case about 20 posts then I could post directly.
Thread starting was not a privilege until I had acquired 100 posts (assume this is still the case ?). A kind member advised me to expect to be called a 'rag' when I first posted as part of my initiation.
The reasons for this were claimed to be historical abuse (not sure what this means) but if those with very low posts are allowed to post their views surely this view has been condoned by the forum if only to be contentious ?
Some of the best arguments on here have been between City fans and admitted non City fans who cast a valid different opinion of the same facts.
We may get the odd fifth columnist or long term liar but we have more chance to convert them than the reverse.
Personally i take very little notice of the posters total # of posts but realise that for some people it demonstrates their loyalty to this forum otherwise why have a total posts league table ?.
However I have to say that as an older than most on here lifelong supporter of City I have learnt such a lot from the time that many members of this forum devote so thank you again Blue Moon Forum.
Not sure of number but in my case about 20 posts then I could post directly.
Thread starting was not a privilege until I had acquired 100 posts (assume this is still the case ?). A kind member advised me to expect to be called a 'rag' when I first posted as part of my initiation.
The reasons for this were claimed to be historical abuse (not sure what this means) but if those with very low posts are allowed to post their views surely this view has been condoned by the forum if only to be contentious ?
Some of the best arguments on here have been between City fans and admitted non City fans who cast a valid different opinion of the same facts.
We may get the odd fifth columnist or long term liar but we have more chance to convert them than the reverse.
Personally i take very little notice of the posters total # of posts but realise that for some people it demonstrates their loyalty to this forum otherwise why have a total posts league table ?.
However I have to say that as an older than most on here lifelong supporter of City I have learnt such a lot from the time that many members of this forum devote so thank you again Blue Moon Forum.
Garry.Cook
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 1,812
Good idea. Thankfully I joined long before the influx of RAG's and fake-ITK's so was never subject to this, but you see a LOT of new posters getting shit because they've just joined up, often by the old guard who've racked up thousands of posts over the last 8 or 9 years.
You can still see the number if you really want to but people have been beaten with the 'low post count' stick for too long.
It's almost seen as a dick swinging contest now and it's a bit silly when you think about it, we're all (most of us) here to chat about MCFC in good spirits.
You can still see the number if you really want to but people have been beaten with the 'low post count' stick for too long.
It's almost seen as a dick swinging contest now and it's a bit silly when you think about it, we're all (most of us) here to chat about MCFC in good spirits.
the originalkippaxman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 1,558
Ric you could always remove the post counts and have a membership status where you move up a tier dependant on how many posts you have eg
New Member - 0-99
Member - 100-999
City Member - 1000 - 2499
Gold - 2500 - 9999
Platinum - 10000 - 49999
Superbia - 50000+
You get the idea
New Member - 0-99
Member - 100-999
City Member - 1000 - 2499
Gold - 2500 - 9999
Platinum - 10000 - 49999
Superbia - 50000+
You get the idea
Zubrman
Well-Known Member
Why not have them as optional in your profile settings? People who want to see them can, and vice versa.
markbmcfc
Well-Known Member
My take on this for what it's worth. I have 6,000 posts roughly, so decide from that whether this is worth reading.
Firstly, people take the Internet way too seriously. This forum has several prominent members that have an attitude of "if your opinion doesn't match mine, you're wrong (and a ****)". They don't seem to understand the definition of opinion and the fact there's nothing wrong if people disagree, it prompts discussion which is the whole point of a forum. I firmly believe people use this forum as a parallel life where they can feel self importance they may not have in the real world. If you get defensive about me saying that, chances are you're one of the people I'm talking about. Some people just cannot cope with the prospect their view is wrong, be it on a forum or face to face, people are who they are but for the love of god, it's the internet and a user forum where the sole purpose is to discuss. Not "shut up, you're wrong you ****", or similar.
Wtf does that have to do with post counts? Well, they are probably best described as credibility counts and i'm guilty myself of using it to judge a member based on what he/she's put. It might be complete rubbish - but I generally find those with lower counts post either more WUM related material or just complete nonsense. It's very plausible someone with 50 posts just wants to cause trouble, and less plausible that someone that has put the time into racking up 10,000 posts is here purely to piss people off. Though, there are one or two. In that case, rightly or wrongly it's a barometer to make a judgement on the credibility of a post. At the end of the day, if new members were genuine enough to engage in real discussion, their post count would rise and they will be viewed differently. Not saying it's right, but it's generally the case. We all had to go through the "newb" period, so why can't they.
Ric probably didn't set up a forum so that people could 'qualify' to have their views heard, so it's a double edged sword. I can see the logic of removing them as it creates an even ground, but I do see it as potentially causing more thread derailments and arguments, because in the past users may have ignored someone that has posted something dodgy, whereas now they might engage them and it's unlikely to end well.
At the end of the day, the forum has a Poll function and we live in a democracy, let people vote and go with the majority. It's also Ric's forum and if he doesn't want counts, tough shit. If you feel strongly enough that losing the post count is of detriment to your viewing pleasure, join mumsnet.
Firstly, people take the Internet way too seriously. This forum has several prominent members that have an attitude of "if your opinion doesn't match mine, you're wrong (and a ****)". They don't seem to understand the definition of opinion and the fact there's nothing wrong if people disagree, it prompts discussion which is the whole point of a forum. I firmly believe people use this forum as a parallel life where they can feel self importance they may not have in the real world. If you get defensive about me saying that, chances are you're one of the people I'm talking about. Some people just cannot cope with the prospect their view is wrong, be it on a forum or face to face, people are who they are but for the love of god, it's the internet and a user forum where the sole purpose is to discuss. Not "shut up, you're wrong you ****", or similar.
Wtf does that have to do with post counts? Well, they are probably best described as credibility counts and i'm guilty myself of using it to judge a member based on what he/she's put. It might be complete rubbish - but I generally find those with lower counts post either more WUM related material or just complete nonsense. It's very plausible someone with 50 posts just wants to cause trouble, and less plausible that someone that has put the time into racking up 10,000 posts is here purely to piss people off. Though, there are one or two. In that case, rightly or wrongly it's a barometer to make a judgement on the credibility of a post. At the end of the day, if new members were genuine enough to engage in real discussion, their post count would rise and they will be viewed differently. Not saying it's right, but it's generally the case. We all had to go through the "newb" period, so why can't they.
Ric probably didn't set up a forum so that people could 'qualify' to have their views heard, so it's a double edged sword. I can see the logic of removing them as it creates an even ground, but I do see it as potentially causing more thread derailments and arguments, because in the past users may have ignored someone that has posted something dodgy, whereas now they might engage them and it's unlikely to end well.
At the end of the day, the forum has a Poll function and we live in a democracy, let people vote and go with the majority. It's also Ric's forum and if he doesn't want counts, tough shit. If you feel strongly enough that losing the post count is of detriment to your viewing pleasure, join mumsnet.
As I said before, if a consensus is wanted, why not run a poll rather than have 6 people repeat their points?
People will always pick the status quo. In fact that has been a massive problem stopping the development of the forum for years.
6 years ago I added a Like button for Facebook as we were starting to customise and update the software, keeping it relevant and current. It caused absolute uproar and many long term users said that they'd leave the site if we didn't remove it. 3 months ago we added a Facebook button, Twitter button, Google+ and RSS subscription buttons and nobody has said a single word about it.
If we take a vote now I guarantee it will come down on the side of keeping post counts. If we have it in a month I guarantee it will come down on the side of no post counts. People on here are extremely change resistant as a general rule.
Ric you could always remove the post counts and have a membership status where you move up a tier dependant on how many posts you have eg
New Member - 0-99
Member - 100-999
City Member - 1000 - 2499
Gold - 2500 - 9999
Platinum - 10000 - 49999
Superbia - 50000+
You get the idea
seen that type of thing on other forums, seems ok