• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Suggestion: Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's a bad idea. Who cares about post counts anyway? They don't reflect a person's contribution to discussion and they won't if this change is made.

Stewart, I guess all those threads about what you like to eat while reading, what kind of book covers you like, and where you buy your books are more worthy than General Chat? I don't know . . .
 
novella said:
I guess all those threads about what you like to eat while reading, what kind of book covers you like, and where you buy your books are more worthy than General Chat? I don't know . . .
Click to expand...

That eating one is so daft it belongs in General Chat.
 
Why not put a time limit on General Chat? After so many days of inactivity, posts / threads are automatically purged.

On the same lines, I agree that General Chat and the like should not be included with post counts... if we even need post counts. The Writers' Block and Writers' Showcase sections should be included if we are to use post counts.

Is there a way to also remove or split General Chat posts when using the New Posts feature, so, when searching for new posts, members aren't overwhelmed with off-topic posts?

Anyone care to find my percentage? I am curious.


Edit: Shouldn't the Four-word Story thread be moved into General Chat?
 
I go along with Stewart. We should keep the post count because it helps to identify experienced forum users but exclude the mentioned sections.

That way it would be easier to find out who is interested in the main theme of this forum and who is absuing TBF as a place for inane chat.
 
Rogue said:
That way it would be easier to find out who is interested in the main theme of this forum and who is absuing TBF as a place for inane chat.
Click to expand...

I did not realize the elitist nature of this forum.

saying that utilizing the "General Chat" area is "abusing TBF" is absurd and arrogant. And when did we appoint "inanity detectors"?

I certainly hope that I never get so wraped around how serious I am that I forget how entertaining a mindless jaunt down "inane" Lane can be.

For God's sake, get a friggin' grip.
 
If you wish to get rid of the Post Counts all together, then do so. Perhaps, if you wish, just change the format so that this information is not posted on every post we do. Yet you should not use post counts as a means to judge forum members for their usefulness. We have all found this forum because of a love of reading. Obviously, we all have basic things in common.

However, suddenly deciding that all general chat is "inane drivel" is entirely snobbish. The only use I can see for excluding these posts would be to segregate certain users and to form a class distinction of sorts on this board. Inevitably, there would be those who would feel superior to junior members who wish to have side conversations. People form their own online friends and cliques anyway, must we encourage this further through only counting 'useful' posts (Judged useful by whom i might ask)? The General chat forum is a means for people to get to know other members.

I enjoy discussing books I have read, I do not enjoy being censored in what I am allowed to speak about and what not. I occassionally enjoy a small jaunt into petty small talk. For those who don't enjoy it, fine, your perogative. If you get rid of post counts, discount all of them and perhaps have a ranking system based on how long someone has been a member. Do not use post counts as a means to judge people and to be intellectually prejudiced. How horrible... really. Can't we just have nice relaxed forum where one can enjoy conversing with another member, why does this information even matter?

Yes, our forum is The Book Forum, this overall theme is why the majority of the forums deal with reading. One general chat forum will not kill us. People can decide for themselves whom they deem to be a true lover of books and who is just here to chat. Creating a class system based on where you post only seems to encourage elitism.
 
Alright, Sirmyk, when I searched here is what I came up with. I may not have done it right.

When I search for posts of yours in all forums I came up 494 threads. When i search only in Non Book discussions, test area, suggestions, and member intros I came up with 235 threads. So.. ::drum roll::

You appear to be 47.6% inane. Congratulations!! :p
 
you must not have done that right Scottishduffy....sirmyk is certainly more than only 47.6% inane... I demand a recount....

for one thing, he's got over 1400 posts...
 
I couldn't look up individual posts (or maybe I can but don't know how), it just showed me how many threads he had posted in. Whether he posted in that thread only once, or multiple times I don't know. I just was able to get that roughly 47% of the threads he was participating in were in the non-book related discussion areas.

Indidivual posting I couldn't get.
 
Duffy, I knew I liked you. Since when did it become a crime to post about something other than books in the non book forum? Every board I belong to has a general chat section. It's for the express purpose of keeping the non-on-topic stuff out of the topical forums.
If you don't like general chat, don't read it. It's pretty simple.
 
sirmyk said:
So, what's my percentage of inane vs. whatnot?
Click to expand...

You're really eager to know that, aren't you?
692 posts in book discussions, 57 of them in the four-word story. So 47,33% if we count the four-word story, 43,43% if we don't.

@Scottishduffy: The advanced search feature does offer to search for individual posts, but you would have to split up the search since you can get only up to 500 results.
 
leckert said:
I did not realize the elitist nature of this forum.

saying that utilizing the "General Chat" area is "abusing TBF" is absurd and arrogant. And when did we appoint "inanity detectors"?

I certainly hope that I never get so wraped around how serious I am that I forget how entertaining a mindless jaunt down "inane" Lane can be.

For God's sake, get a friggin' grip.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly Leckert. It's ridiculous. Some people on here come across as very territorial and there's a lot of pseudo-intellectual snobbery.

Also, some of the complaints and moans about how the forum is run seem very frivolous. There will always be problems to be addressed and genuine complaints with a community this size but some people are being deliberatley pernickety and difficult for the sake of flexing their muscles or having an argument.

but thats a whole other discussion. :)

Back to the point though, it's time to get off of people's backs and let them enjoy the forum.
 
I really don't see where most people are coming from here.

1) Stewart's proposal is in /no/ way snobby, elitist, nor an attempt to segregate the members or place them in certain classes. I really don't see where people got this idea from - it just seems ridiculous and overly sensitive. Is the current post count snobby? I mean that seperates people - those who post a lot and those who don't. Because all Stewart wants to do is adjust the post counts so it shows who posts a lot in book-related topics and those who don't. Doesn't seem too "snobby" to me, nor too different from what the current post count already does.

2) Stewart's proposal /does not/ imply the removal of General Chat, nor is it implying that we should censor what people talk about. Again, this notion is ridiculous... I mean did people even read the first post? Members can still continue to post in general chat as much as they like, it just means that their post count will not be increasing as they do so. No real biggie, IMO. And I fail to see how /that/ is censoring what people say.

3) I think that this idea /would/ be useful. As abecedarian has said - 'The only purpose I can see is it allows others to have some idea how long the others have been around here, and how active.' - the main purpose of the post count is to see how active people are. This proposed post count will ensure that new members are able to pick out those who contribute to book disscussions the most, and therefore may be the most helpful when pm'd on certain topics. Being a relalitvely new on the forum, I know how big and how scary this plac can be when you first join, and it's good to know the people you can talk to who have experience and can offer advice on post content and such.

And really, most people here have stated that the post count doesn't matter - so why get all up in arms about it?

Just my two cents.
 
Peder said:
Because some people are sensitive about being categorized by other people?
Click to expand...
I fail to see how this is being categorized and yet the current post count does no such thing. It's a ridiculous and, quite honestly, an infuriating idea. All it is doing is showing how active people are in book discussions. Big deal! I don't see why some people are so upset that their precious post count is going to go down. The current post count shows those who are active posters and those who are not, and yet this is not categorizing?
 
MonkeyCatcher said:
I really don't see where most people are coming from here.

1) Stewart's proposal is in /no/ way snobby, elitist,
2) Stewart's proposal /does not/ imply the removal of General Chat.
Click to expand...
I may be mis-reading the thread here but I don't think there is a massive objection to Stewarts OP.

The comments about elitisim probably stem from remarks like this:
Rogue said:
That way it would be easier to find out who is interested in the main theme of this forum and who is absuing TBF as a place for inane chat.
Click to expand...
Comments objecting to the General Chat area being removed probably relate to remarks like this:
sanyuja said:
If you ask me, I think they should close the General Chat area.
Click to expand...
Regards,

K-S
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top