Suggestion: Posts

[sirmyk]

The crickets have been absent these last few days, but I do agree that they will return if General Chat is ever destroyed.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Kenny posted(and I have posted twice now) a few statements that give away the true nature of this proposal.

This is not indicative of the true reason /at all/. Sure, it may show some people's opinions on the topic of General Chat, but as Ice and I have already explained this idea would help new members identify the people who are more experienced in posting about books and can possibly offer some useful advice.

Just because I am all for this idea does not mean that I am "snobby" nor "pretentious". I frequently post in the "General Chat" section as well as posting in the book sections of the forum, and in no way think that people should be looked down upon because they post more in the Chat section than the other sections, but I still believe this idea to be a good one. I, for one, am not afraid that my precious little post count will decrease

 

[Peder]

I thought the stated purpose had more to do with inane drivel than giving good advice.
Just tryin to keep the scorecard straight,
Peder

 

[SFG75]

I thought the stated purpose had more to do with inane drivel than giving good advice.
Just tryin to keep the scorecard straight,
Peder

Very true, the "inane" comment wasn't from subsequent posters, it was posted by the person who created the entire thread in the first place. That in and of itself makes it a serious argument to consider, it isn't something that you just sweep away. Why is it that they are not clarifying their views?, and why is it that others are speaking out as to what the ultimate goal is in light of the embarrassing quotes that state otherwise?

 

[Peder]

Since there seems to be a lull at the moment, perhaps it is as good a time as any to offer my own reaction. It is very simple.

I have never seen any good come from separating people into sheep and goats.

Peder

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Very true, the "inane" comment wasn't from subsequent posters, it was posted by the person who created the entire thread in the first place. That in and of itself makes it a serious argument to consider, it isn't something that you just sweep away. Why is it that they are not clarifying their views?, and why is it that others are speaking out as to what the ultimate goal is in light of the embarrassing quotes that state otherwise?

Stewart using the term 'those who are here to talk inane drivel' does not change what this idea proposes. If you disregard the rather demeaning words which he used, you will notice that he was perfectly right. It will enable new members to differentiate between those who are here to get down to business and talk about books, and those who are more here to have fun, of whom I have nothing against. The only problem here is choice of words, which has nothing to do with the benefits of this new idea. The idea can't be too "snobbish" nor "elitist" as a mod has given it her thumbs up.

I have never seen any good come from separating people into sheep and goats.

Again, this is no more seperating the masses than the current post count is

 

[SFG75]

Stewart using the term 'those who are here to talk inane drivel' does not change what this idea proposes.

Nothing is ever implemented without intention. It's obviously what his plan intends for those whom he deems as being "inane" in nature. If he thought his post wasn't well-worded, he would've said so by now. He hasn't, which shows what his true views are on this, no matter who tries to come behind him and clean things up a bit.

It will enable new members to differentiate between those who are here to get down to business and talk about books, and those who are more here to have fun, of whom I have nothing against.

Usually before joining, members do some lurking-I know that as it's what I did before joining. It isn't that hard to see who starts threads and who posts often in book related threads. Not only that, but looks can be somewhat deceptive. If you have a general chat posting rate of 45%, are you truly less "inane" than someone who has a general chat posting rate of 50%? Is that really something someone would maintain? And not only that, I'd like to know the name of one member who has been led astray regarding books by PM'ing a more "inane" member than another one.

 

[Jemima Aslana]

I don't bloody well believe it! I thought I could expect intelligent people on this forum, and instead here we are tryign discuss one person's opinion based on the use of words in another's statement.

Jesus Effing Christ!

What one person or two may have said that might have been offense shows nothing about 1) what good or bad the proposal actually is when viewed from other perspectives and 2) what other people might think.

This has quickly turned ridiculous. Okay, so a few people think og General Chat as 'inane drivel', so what? I'm pretty sure those who like their random hilarity in General Chat think the book-heads are stuffy and boring. And again: So what? We all have different opinions, but as I stated before and as Ice has stated as well now: The main focus of the forum is Books, thus it should not be a crime to prioritize those forums when it comes to post count and whatnot.

Now what the post count might be used for... on the forum I administrate we had a member send a PM to the 5 top posters to complain about abusive PM's. He should have done so to the Mods, but as a newb he clearly didn't realise that. Thankfully one Mod was among the top posters so it did end up in the right place quickly. But point in case is: Some people *do* focus on post count and think that the more posts the more intelligent they are and the more useful their statements - now if anything is inane drivel - *that* is it. On IWD our top poster is one of those with a vast knowledge of our main subject on the forum - I have yet to run into an on-topic question he has not been able to answer, however, he is also 15 years old and not really worth asking if it's about advice on girlfriends, boyfriends, depression, suicide - all such topics that pop up amongts our angsty teens now and then.

I am one of the top posters on IWD. I get PM's from members I've never talked to asking me what I think they should do about this and that problem in their off-line lives.

I have no idea what kind of spread this PMing privately concept has here. But if it is a concern of the Mods I figure it's a point worthy of notice.

What it once again boils down to: Not having a post count in General Chat will not disrupt the fun there - in all honesty: I doubt anyone would actually notice if it one day disappeared. The people who don't care about post counts either way obviously won't care either way, so for now we can leave them out of the equation. The people who want (and I deliberately say want and not prefer) postcount in General Chat should reassess exactly why they post in General Chat and why exactly the post count in that specific area means so much to them. As I touched on before: I can't help but wonder how much of the chit-chat would disappear from General Chat if there were no posts to be gained by posting there.

I'd like to see what might happen. It certainly *would* discourage those (hopefully few) who post only for the number of posts.

So instead of attacking the choice of words ofthose who would like to see a lack of post count in General Chat, why doesn't somebody tell us clearly why not having that post count might be damaging to the forum?

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Nothing is ever implemented without intention. It's obviously what his plan intends for those whom he deems as being "inane" in nature.

Ah, yes, his evil "plan", because you know right from day one he has been plotting against those people who post frequently in General Chat. You're on to him, by golly. It was /never/ about suggesting something which might benefit the forum, just about his life's conquest

And I still do not see how this matters /at all/. If you do not believe that people who post more in General Chat are here to talk 'inane drivel' and that people who post more in book-related sections are no better than any other member, then this change in post count should display nothing to you. Only if you believe that there are 'inane drivlers' and highly elitist, literary buffs could this difference in post count show you /anything/ about the people apart from the fact of weither or not they post often in the book related topics.

If he thought his post wasn't well-worded, he would've said so by now. He hasn't, which shows what his true views are on this, no matter who tries to come behind him and clean things up a bit.

I don't think that he has been active /at all/ today has he? I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't just leave things be in this thread if he saw some of the comments.
And I am not 'cleaning things up a bit'. I am trying to discourage all of these ridiculous ideas that have come about from the original suggestion.

Usually before joining, members do some lurking-I know that as it's what I did before joining. It isn't that hard to see who starts threads and who posts often in book related threads.

But why not make it easier on the newbies? Some people may also think that learning to use quote tags isn't that hard, but we have had a new member here recently who needed help in that area.
And just as a little side note - I didn't lurk around here before I joined. I had one look in a couple of threads and joined - not nearly enough to distinguish the major posters.

Jemima - /Excellent/ post! I agreed with every word.

 

[Peder]

Again, this is no more seperating the masses than the current post count is

MC,
Ignoring the use of 'the masses' as inflammatory, I'll simply say that we seem to have different experiences of the matter. My own background has been to regard "separate but equal," as really "separate but unequal," but I recognize that things are easily viewed differently elsewhere. The back of the bus is really no different than the front of the bus -- except that it is.

And perhaps now is the time for all those people who have helped strangers with book questions, in response to private contacts, to tell us how frequently that has happened and how big a part of life it is here. I see many people who open threads with their questions and I've had the impression that those questions here on TBF get handled very well and quite expeditiously. So are we talking about something that is real and in this forum, or real but in some other forum? Or is it something we only think could happen, or should happen here. I've never heard of it before this. Perhaps you, MonkeyCatcher, have helped some people privately?

I think this discussion could use more light and less heat.
More information, less inflammation. /groan/

And I also think that the mods should resolve the question however they wish, considering whatever they think to be in the overall benefit the forum. And, if my posting profile turns out to be not what is desired -- never yet started a thread for example, not much serious book discussion either, and no non-fiction that I know of -- then I'll leave without having to be pushed. This is far from life or death for me.

Peder

PS Just to clarify. The current post count is an objective fact, not a reflection of some figure-of-merit, just as being older is an objective fact and doesn't mean being smarter. If the mods feel the count is being perverted, then it can be abolished as far as I am concerned. But I am definitely not in favor of instituting what amounts to being a figure-of-merit.

P.

 

[Halo]

Personally, I think problems are being created where none exist. The post count - yes, it has no useful purpose other than to see who's around and posting a lot. It doesn't afford you various "titles" as your count increases, as on some other forums. But so what? It's harming no-one! I don't agree that non-book posts should not be included - I look on the Book Forum as a whole, with various sections for people to post in as they wish. Yes, it is primarily a book forum, but that doesn't mean that book-lovers don't want to occasionally talk about something else. It is a person's choice where they post. I get the impression from some posts that some people think people who regularly post in General Chat are somehow inferior to people who post in book areas. I'm sure people will argue this with me, but that is the impression I got. Anyway, I totally oppose non-book posts not being included in the count. What exactly is the point of this proposed change? Something like: "Dear X, you have not posted the required amount of book-related posts this month, so unfortunately your membership is being revoked."?

I don't accept the argument about newbies PMing people for advice based on their post count. To my knowledge, that has never happened here.

I have no idea what kind of spread this PMing privately concept has here. But if it is a concern of the Mods I figure it's a point worthy of notice.

It is not a concern of this Mod. Surely people wanting book related advice only have to look in General Book Discussion or one of the genre fora to see who seems knowledgable about books and who might give good advice? It's there for people to see if they look.

And incidentally, I must echo what Ice said about splitting threads - everyone calls for that to happen until we actually do split a thread - then there is uproar about it.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

if my posting profile turns out to be not what is desired -- never yet started a thread for example, not much serious book discussion either, and no non-fiction that I know of -- then I'll leave without having to be pushed. This is far from life or death for me.

Peder,

I'd say that you were consistently one of the most intelligent, level-headed and egoless posters on site. If you left it would be the sites loss not yours.

KS

 

[Scottishduffy]

I could not care less about my post count. I don't care if it is high, or if it low. I just enjoy posting. However, I am opposed to the idea of a post count being used for only particular posts. While the majority of people don't care one way or another, there are those who would use this count as a way to judge the 'real members', as a means to classify people. The reasoning behind this seems to be intellectual elitism.

Whether or not the original intention, it comes across as something highly snobbish. Either way it is explained, it is still explained as means to classify members. Honestly, I don't care about my counts. I do care about the reasoning behind and the idea that some people would use this to judge me.

Okee... my last post on this. No need to keep things stirring. Whatever happens I trust the mods in their decisions.

 

[Peder]

Peder,
[words deleted, too embarrasing to be repeated - crp]
KS

/blushing very severely/
Kenny,
Those are very nice words and I can assure you that I appreciate them, as anyone would. So, thank you very much. However, no person is indispensable and the site will go along fine without me, or anyone else. Quickly enough the hole would disappear and be filled again just as when one pulls one's finger out of a pond of water. For me it would simply be removing a possible source of aggravation as I try more and more to live a calm and placid life. I think the nicest word in the language is 'serene.'
And many thanks again,
Now back to the fray,
Where's my sword
Peder

 

[SFG75]

I don't believe that those who oppose this plan are doing so for doing so's sake. What bothers me is that the justification for it appears groundless. It has been asked twice now as to when an event occured where a member PM'd someone with a high post count to ask a question regarding books, and was let down. No one has ever posted about this, and if it happened-I'm certain that it would've been raised. No example has been offered up. So why do we need a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? When I read this proposal, I get a skeptical feeling, kind of like when you talk to a used car salesman who tells you that they have your interest at heart.

General chat is just as much a part of this forum as any other thread, book related or not. It's what makes this site unique and it's what helps bring people together. My contribution there is no less important than any post that I make in "general book discussion."

I hope this doesn't go through, it has less consensus than other proposals that clearly had a mandate from the vast majority of forum members(i.e.-the "hall of shame" idea) If this goes through and the former doesn't, I'll respect it, but I'll be very disappointed. People walk with their feet--we shouldn't encourage them to do so by using a method which in a de facto way says: "You don't contribute when you post in this thread, as opposed to the "X" thread."

 

[hay82]

The only way I see this as a way to judge anyone would be if the post count was followed by sort of scoring system where the percentage of post made about books was calculated and shown. If you simply show the post made in the book sections, the people would not be able to tell how much you post elsewhere.

It would be better to just remove it. Then everybody would have to judge everyone by what they say and not by how many posts they have.

 

[Stewart]

Why, on book forums, is everyone's first line of defense when they disagree with something to call the other party elitist?

 

[SFG75]

Why, on book forums, is everyone's first line of defense when they disagree with something to call the other party elitist?

I think it has to do with the whole "inane comments" line. Remember that it came first before any words such as "elitist" or "pretentious. Being someone who enjoys general chat and who thinks that it is just as worthy of any other thread, I take exception to it's categorization and people who post in it, of being of limited intelligence.

Still no example of someone being led astray by PM'ing a member with a high post count??

 

[novella]

Tell you what bothers me about this thread: the tendency to group people into factions rather than address individual comments. It's very divisive.

If you read the thread carefully, you will find there is a fair amount of considerate thought and common sense here, along with civilised disagreement, and only a small minority of people have made disparaging comments.

It's really just a philosophical question: does the post count serve a purpose, and what purpose does it serve? Could that purpose be served better? No reason to toss accusations around.

 

[Ice]

Still no example of someone being led astray by PM'ing a member with a high post count??

Please re-read my post. When did I ever say it happened here? I wrote:

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.

Thus I am quite clearly talking about another forum. The point I was making was that people do seek advice from members with high post counts but that high counts were not an indication of quality or of knowlege on a certain subject.