Could posts in "Fun and Games" not be counted in user totals?

Well if all you need to begin the application process for full membership is 50 posts INCLUDING Fun & Games, that's a problem right there. I would think excluding Fun & Games would make things far easier on the staff, in that there would likely be fewer applications which meet the basic 50 posts requirement and that those 50 non-Fun & Games posts would be far more likely to give staff an idea of whether the person is suitable for full membership. I assume if all the person has is 50 Fun & Games posts, that means you would most likely reject the person because they hadn't posted anything of substance, so it really seems to me not including Fun & Games posts would cut down on staff work because you'd have fewer applications to process, reject, and then re-process when those rejected people reapply.

As for backlash, it's not like EC hasn't made far more radical changes (i.e., the membership level, PM restrictions, etc.) and weathered the storm, so I can't see how that's a real roadblock. And while I appreciate it might generate some inconsistencies with respect to people who already have full membership and would suddenly now appear to have fewer than 50 posts, how many people actually fall into that group? And how many people would really notice that discrepancy? And then how many of those people who actually noticed (my experience has been that people in general are not terribly observant) would say something or complain? (I'm guessing there are also technical ways to "fudge" someone's counts if people really couldn't handle the occasional full member with fewer than 50 posts...)

And if you turned off the display of post counts in people little info columns, I'm gonna bet next to no one would notice.

I'll admit I wouldn't know how to get around the fact that not displaying post count would potentially require more work on the part of staff processing applications. Maybe that would be offset by having potentially far fewer applications?

As for using post count as an indicator of member activity, I think that's a really misleading metric and here's why: just in the last week or two I've seen a lot of first-time posters who reveal they joined a while ago and have been reading until now but want to introduce themselves. If you consider that from a post count perspective, those people aren't "active" at all but in reality, they've been really active... just pretty "quiet" about it. One of the things I've learned over years of being involved in support/discussion-based forums is that not everyone particpates in the same way: some people are really vocal and really quick to say something while others say things a lot less frequently and often have to think through what they want to say. Personally, I would rather listen to/read someone who posts once a week who has a thoughtful reply than someone who posts once an hour who only says "zomg me too!" In cases like that, something like last login date is, to my mind, at least as good a measure as post count.

I mean, you'll never get away from the fact that people who talk more tend to be more memorable and tend to dominate the discussion but I think shifting how "activity" is considered away (a bit) from post counts by both turning off post count display and excluding Fun & Games from the count would be a step in the right direction. And make less work for staff. It's win-win!

 

Honestly, I don't care whether the post count is displayed or not, or if the F&G posts count or not. But I've read this thread over a few times, and I'm still looking for a rationale to change. And frankly, I'm not seeing one. Here's what I've heard.

"Some people will post simply to get their post count up."

Sure, I'm sure that happens. But I think they're more likely to post because they like (to extend a metaphor) to "hear themselves talk". I think it's more likely that they just like seeing their post there in the thread than seeing how high they can make the counter go. It's the same as saying "They post to just to see their avatar pop up in the thread." Again, maybe so, but that doesn't mean I think we should toss out the avatars.

"Posts in Fun & Games aren't 'real' posts."

Well, sure, I can see how a "this is what song I'm listening to" post doesn't hold as much weight as someone's thoughts about don't-ask-don't-tell. But there's two problems here. First off, I don't think it's up to any of us to decide what posts are "worthy". If we're going to say anything in F&G shouldn't count, that opens up a pretty large can of worms. What if someone responds to an Adam Lambert thread by saying "I loved him on the show"? That didn't add much to the discussion - should we delete one from their post count? If they vote and post "no, I don't smoke" on the smoking poll, should that not count, since it's just a tally? Should we set up a committee to vote on each post to see if it's worthy of post count status?

Secondly, this is supposed to be a community. Where all of us can come together and not just discuss the in-depth things about our sexualities, but just hang out and chat. Eliminating posts from post count seems to suggest that while we might "tolerate" fun, that's not really what we're here for. And I think that's not the right message to be sending.

As I said, I don't honestly care. If the post counts were hidden, diminished, or were reset at zero every two months, it's all the same to me. But since it's such a non-issue to me, I'm confused as to why it's an issue with anybody else.

Lex

 

I don't doubt that. And if the applicant had posts in the Fun & Games forum, I would definitely expect those would get looked at when they applied for full membership. But I also think that it's more likely posts elsewhere would be more useful.

And that whole process would be eliminated if post counts did not include the Fun & Games forum. Which seems like a bonus, to me.

Oh, by no means did I mean to suggest that being on EC reading frequently should count anything towards full membership status. I was talking about measuring "activity" in general, because my understanding is that full membership is nothing to do with activity level; it's to do with the content of what people post and how trustworthy/forthright they are, right? Basically, the staff want some indication that the person is who they say they are.

The post count minimum serves two purposes: it prevents every brand new person from applying for full membership right away and gives the staff some actual material to make a decision based on. Like... well I assume if someone has 200 posts of "me too!" they're not going to be more likely to get full membership than someone who has 50 posts of informative, more in-depth material, true? My understanding of post counts in terms of full membership application is that they're simply a minimum benchmark that must be met.

I'm sure you didn't intend this but I, at least, find that kind of comment really frustrating, because while I realise, as Lex points out below, that some people don't care about post counts one way or the other, I know I do, and I know, having been here for years and having seen the issue get raised periodically, that many others do.

1. post counts don't provide useful information, or sometimes provide misleading info
2. excluding Fun & Games posts from counts would reduce staff work in processing full membership applications
3. having ubiquitous display of post counts leads people to believe post counts matter more than they do
4. any information regarding activity that post counts do provide is skewed by including Fun & Games posts given that Fun & Games posts are frequently different in terms of length, depth, and seriousness than other posts--and often include threads where the only purpose is to post relatively mindlessly in a repeated fashion

There may be more but I think that's the gist of it.

Actually, it's not the same thing as all. There's nothing on EC that keeps a running total of how many times someone's avatar appears. And I'm pretty sure no one is saying toss out avatars.

I believe the feeling is that "far fewer posts in Fun & Games are likely to be substantive than elsewhere on EC." Of course it would be absolutely CRAZY to attempt to judge, or to want to judge, the substance of individual posts--I have no doubt that there are posts in Fun & Games that indeed are substantive. But I also think it's fair to say that, in general, posts in a section where threads like "count to a million" are encouraged are less likely to be substantive.

And it's worth pointing out that the EC staff have already made determinations that certain sections do not contain count-worthy posts: as Martin says, posts requesting full membership and staff responses to those requests aren't counted. I assume the stuff in "Ask the Staff" isn't counted. So the precedent of declaring an entire section excluded from post counts is, in effect, an already open can, with very few worms that I'm aware of. The slope is only slippery if you let it be.

I think what it suggests, if anything, is that support and advice are primary, and fun is more than welcome but that shits and giggles is not the main purpose of EC. I think a lot of long-standing members quickly forget how freaked out new members often are when they arrive on EC's doorstep. Of course EC is a community--a very awesome one, even--but it's a community with a really important purpose, and while that purpose includes light-hearted socialising, that purpose is not simply that type of social interaction.

Well that's totally fair... obviously it's not an issue for some. But if it truly isn't an issue for you, then why are you presenting arguments against it?

 

1. post counts don't provide useful information, or sometimes provide misleading info

It's just a datum, much like age or mood or "where you're from" or "member since". The information may or may not be useful, but I don't think anyone considers it misleading. I trust ECers to not assume that 5000-posters aren't necessarily the most intelligent people on the board, just as I trust them not to assume that anyone over the age of 21 is all that mature, or that anyone who has been here more than a year is part of the in crowd.

2. excluding Fun & Games posts from counts would reduce staff work in processing full membership applications

Actually, it wouldn't change that at all. We may notice how many posts they have when they apply, but the first thing we do is delve into those posts looking for red flags. Whether that count is present, absent, or is stripped of F&G posts doesn't change that at all.

3. having ubiquitous display of post counts leads people to believe post counts matter more than they do

If someone put the words "EC MODERATOR" under their sign-in name, THAT would be misleading. Having their post count displayed isn't misleading in the slightest. If anyone on a messageboard says "He had 5000 posts, so I thought he was really smart", I doubt such a person would have the deductive powers to even find their way onto this messageboard.

4. any information regarding activity that post counts do provide is skewed by including Fun & Games posts given that Fun & Games posts are frequently different in terms of length, depth, and seriousness than other posts--and often include threads where the only purpose is to post relatively mindlessly in a repeated fashion

I think I addressed this. It's a datum. It's how many times people have posted, period. Not how many times the poster has made a good point, or what a great poster he is. I've actually seen good, intelligent posts in F&G - not a lot, true, but there have been some - and we've certainly seen plenty of "me too LOL" posts out of that section. I don't see the need to separate the F&G ones out.

But if it truly isn't an issue for you, then why are you presenting arguments against it?

"Why not" is not an acceptable answer to "Why?". I'm playing devil's advocate here - that's my job.

I don't find displaying the post count to be dangerous or misleading. Because my experience is - people understand the difference between quality and quantity. Even 13-year-olds. Good arguments, presented well, hold much more weight than the post count of the person who posted it.

If it were up to me, I'd say let the post count stand, because I remain unconvinced that showing it poses any problem whatsoever. If a change is to be made, I'd favor eliminating showing them at all, and keeping them in statistics. I'd argue against subtracting out the F&G ones, as I think it sends a message that this section is somehow "set apart" from the rest of this website.

Lex

 

I agree

 

I agree with Lex on every level.

Posts in Chit Chat and Entertainment and Technology can be less useful than posts in F&Gs at times. If we were to remove posts from F&G, then logically, you'd have to remove it from everywhere but S&A, Health, and LGBT rights. The other forums can get very simple, and repetitive (Coming out stories). Yes, there are ones that are unique, in all forums, but it's not up to any 1 person to decide which is a good post.

I really could care less either way, but I have come to notice the people with problems with post count are the ones with low post count, but don't post in F&G...

 

this is stupid why are people so bothered about having post additions removed from f&g section i agree if you do that you might as well do it with like nearly everything

your just making work and fuss out of nothing i agree with the dear astro back to more important stuff....

 

What a coincidence, i noticed this also. The people against it all have 'high' post counts, probably from useless posts in F&G (cept Lex obviously)

This is actually the first forum i've been on that counts posts in ALL sections. The spam sections on all the others don't count, and for good reason.

 

*ahem*

Yes, my post count = so very low. :dry:

As SAGUY84 points out, that's a silly argument, since conversely many (though not all) people who oppose the suggested change have (I know you're all shocked) high post counts.

Also, I really wish people would stop speaking out against the suggested change(s) and then claiming they don't care one way or another. If people don't like the suggestion, that's fine. But it really doesn't make any sense for someone to list all their objections to the change and then claim it doesn't matter to them. If it didn't matter to someone, one assumes that person wouldn't bother to post their problems with the idea in the first place. I don't know what the term for that type of argument is, but to me it seems like "trying to increase the legitimacy of one's argument by highlighting one's purported objectivity about its subject."

In fact, if you ask me, the several postings in opposition to the change kinda prove that post counts are considered important (by some), which undercuts, if not completely obliterates, the frequently-posted assertion that post counts are "just" a number. If they're "just" a number, then turning off the display of that number in people's userpanels (or excluding counts from certain sections designed to be frivolous) shouldn't warrant such heated discussion and proposals for a forum-wide vote, right?

 

>>>In fact, if you ask me, the several postings in opposition to the change kinda prove that post counts are considered important (by some), which undercuts, if not completely obliterates, the frequently-posted assertion that post counts are "just" a number. If they're "just" a number, then turning off the display of that number in people's userpanels (or excluding counts from certain sections designed to be frivolous) shouldn't warrant such heated discussion and proposals for a forum-wide vote, right?

As the people in charge of the website, we're going to be conservative by nature. Change will only come if we feel it's important, necessary, or beneficial. And the onus is on you to convince us that it is any and/or all of these three. And speaking just for me, I feel you have yet to do this.

Lex

 

I'll be honest; my 5,000+ post count is the only thing that makes me feel worthwhile.



:roflmao:

 

^ What about all those empty wine bottles in your room?

Lex

 

^ Oh that's just me... drowning my sorrows *sniff* at the thought of my losing my 5000+ post count.

:tears:

But seriousness now; personally, unlike Obama or homeless people, I don't feel the need for change. If people think post count matters, then they'll be hacked off if it's removed. If people think that it doesn't matter, then they probably don't give a damn either way.

Okay, back to a new joke

I use my post count to pick up chicks:

"Hey bebeh, wanna see my.... 5000+ post count on EC?"
"Oh my, that's amazing! MARRY ME!"

 

This makes me laugh.
A post count is simply that, a count of your posts.
Not a count of your posts that mattered, or ones that didn't.
Just a count of all of your posts.

As far as I'm concerned, posting in Fun and Games is still posting. I post when I find things interesting. It's that simple. Post count = count of posts.

 

Bahaaha, brilliant. Except, "back to a new joke"... That just sounds incorrect. Back to something new, back to something we hadn't heard before... Shouldn't it be like "on to a new joke"?

Oh jeez don't count this post.
It's too much fun and games.

But like I said, post count = count of posts, I think everything should be left as it is.

 

Lauren, I suppose you can think of it as going back to 'making new and exciting post count jokes' after putting that aside for serious site talk. "Back to a new joke" is like "with this new joke of mine, let's go back to the casual fun mood we were in before and leave this serious talk."

 

I think we're overthinking this.

However we ARE increasing our post count at the same time