# Annoyed about posting for one's post count: is it just me?



## Beelzebub (Sep 2, 2003)

I’m having a frustrating problem with a message board that you guys might be able to help me with.  

Much to my chagrin, there is a member who appears to be posting merely for the sake of upping his post count.  By this, I mean that he posts one line responses simply to voice an agreement, if two people post a reply to his message he will post a separate reply to each, instead of editing messages he will double post, and he has defended slightly off topic messages by stating that he is trying to up his post count.

If this practice were limited to spam threads (like [hivemind]) I would have absolutely no problem with it; hivemind threads are clearly labeled, thus easy for me to avoid.  But as it is, in an on-topic thread with 67 replies he can have as many as 27 responses.  Each one sporting his avatar and rather long sig.  When I see a post by him, I will sometimes ignore the body of the actual message; which is sad because he often has something insightful and pertinent to say. 

I guess what I’m trying to ask is: is this my problem or his?  Should I learn to live with his rapid-fire postings, complete with their graphics-heavy attachments?  Should I e-mail him and voice my concerns politely? Are such activities against the rules and if so, should I report the threads when I see them?  Or should I just apologize now for posting on such a negative topic.  

Thank you for your time and I apologize if this thread is inappropriate


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 2, 2003)

Shoot me an email with details, please, and I'll look in to the matter.

EDIT - never mind, I know who it is and I'll speak to them.

In general, consistent and gratuitous frivolous posting is discouraged. Once and a while is no big deal, but you don't want to annoy other folks; that's just a matter of being polite.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 3, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> In general, consistent and gratuitous frivolous posting is discouraged. Once and a while is no big deal, but you don't want to annoy other folks; that's just a matter of being polite.




I agree

(Post 652 and counting)


----------



## Beelzebub (Sep 3, 2003)

Thanks PC, glad to know I'm not going nuts.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Sep 3, 2003)

One possible solution to this would be to remove the post count. Thus people arent encouraged to post more and more to see their numbers rise.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Sep 3, 2003)

Another solution is to edit your "ignore" list.  Unfortunately, I can't find the USER CP button any more, so I can't direct you to it.

(For point of reference, in all my years on ENWorld, I've only put one person on ignore.  At least it isn't as bad as the Yahoo! news message boards...)


----------



## LightPhoenix (Sep 3, 2003)

I actually think the most efficient solution is to not read his/her posts, but that's just me.  Setting the ignore lists is kind of a double-edged sword, because everyone produces at least one gem once in a while.

Spamming for post count is something that happens on every message board, and I'm amazed there haven't been more people here doing it.  Even so, all post count serves to do is identify who might be active in a community and create issues like this.  I wouldn't be sad if it left, but I don't think it's that big of a deal.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 3, 2003)

You know I am reading this!   

Post count means nothing, some people like to think it is better to have more, that they are winning a race, but it is the quality of the post that counts, while we all post crap every now and then, there are a number of posters that you stop and read because they say something.  

Don't let it get too you, it means nothing.


----------



## Darkness (Sep 3, 2003)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> Another solution is to edit your "ignore" list. Unfortunately, I can't find the USER CP button any more, so I can't direct you to it.



Weird.
In the mean time, here are direct links you can use:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/usercp.php?
http://www.enworld.org/forums/profile.php?do=editlist


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Sep 3, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I actually think the most efficient solution is to not read his/her posts, but that's just me.  Setting the ignore lists is kind of a double-edged sword, because everyone produces at least one gem once in a while.




At which point, someone will more likely than not quote him/her.  Or the flurry of posts that follow theirs will alert you, and you can choose to view that particular post.


----------



## Djeta Thernadier (Sep 3, 2003)

Just curious? Is there some sort of prize for having a high post count or something? I'm baffled as to why anyone would actually do this. I occasionally post brief responses such as "I agree completely"but I don't really think about it when I do. To me, I'm just backing someone elses opinion up when I do that. I won't do it anymore if it's a problem.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 3, 2003)

Djeta Thernadier said:
			
		

> Just curious? Is there some sort of prize for having a high post count or something?




I agree completely! -- N


----------



## Nifft (Sep 3, 2003)

ArthurQ said:
			
		

> One possible solution to this would be to remove the post count.




I think Crothian would be less than happy with this solution. -- N


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2003)

Djeta Thernadier said:
			
		

> Just curious? Is there some sort of prize for having a high post count or something? I'm baffled as to why anyone would actually do this.




Some message boards will give users cool titles for reaching high postcounts, on the theory that since they are more active, they are thus more cool.  We don't do that here, but it perhaps the concept that postcount = cool still exists for some.

Also, think about it.  It's a board of geeks.  You give them a numeric ranking system, what do you expect they'd do with it?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 3, 2003)

Djeta Thernadier said:
			
		

> Just curious? Is there some sort of prize for having a high post count or something?




Well, some guys think it is compensation for a lack somewhere else, like the big gun or flashy car.    Not me, as I am secure with my post count.


----------



## AGGEMAM (Sep 3, 2003)

I'll just throw in some random quotes:

"The ignore list is for amateurs" - Artoomis

"Postcount means everything" - Crothian

"Postcount means monkeys" - Mr Fidgit

More seriously, are you a moderator/adminstrator of said board? In that case, write a netiquette and point him to it!

It might also be because he doesn't know about editing and/or multible quotes in one post options. You be surprised sometimes.

EDIT: Oh, and btw, [Hivemind] isn't a spam thread. It's more like a community chat forum, but in messageboard format, which means that you don't have to be attentive all the time to follow the discussion, you can just scroll back a few posts to see what they are talking about at the moment.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 3, 2003)

Clearly post count means nothing.  I'm actually surprised to find myself in the top 20 of posters, as I've never made any effort to increase my postcount just for the sake of doing so.  Still, it's an interesting little bit of trivia, though.  I think it has _some_ value to know what your post count is.

And some people will make a competition out of anything...


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 3, 2003)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Well, some guys think it is compensation for a lack somewhere else, like the big gun or flashy car.    Not me, as I am secure with my post count.




Hmmm.  No big guns or flashy cars.  Looks like I'm shooting for the post count.  Hmmm.  Not there, either.  Maybe I don't need to compensate.


----------



## Djeta Thernadier (Sep 3, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  No big guns or flashy cars.  Looks like I'm shooting for the post count.  Hmmm.  Not there, either.  Maybe I don't need to compensate.




 *sigh* ok boys....I'm sorry I asked


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 3, 2003)

Djeta Thernadier said:
			
		

> *sigh* ok boys....I'm sorry I asked




Thinking of your "sticky" thread and this thread, may be an interesting day for you.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 3, 2003)

Wow.  It's a good thing grandma is a little dense.    (Bad mod, contributing to the delinquency of a thread...)


----------



## Crothian (Sep 3, 2003)

Ya, and calling Eric's Grandma dense!!


----------



## Elodan (Sep 3, 2003)

I actually was going to ask the same question when I saw this topic.

For some reason it irritates me when people post inane comments which just seem to be there to up their count.

Can anyone explain to me (besides the compensation argument) why some people feel the need to have a high post count?


Thanks.

Tom

Personally, I don't post much because usually somebody else has already said it better or I'd end up saying something to offend Eric's grandma.


----------



## Djeta Thernadier (Sep 3, 2003)

Elodan said:
			
		

> I actually was going to ask the same question when I saw this topic.
> 
> For some reason it irritates me when people post inane comments which just seem to be there to up their count.
> 
> ...




I don't know. But it makes me wonder how many of the people we are accusing really just post sometimes brief messages because they are backing someone's opinion up. I do sometimes, and I'm not trying to get my post count up because, well, I just think it's silly. I hope people who read my brief replies don't think I'm doing so intentionally.


----------



## Beelzebub (Sep 3, 2003)

I will also post one-liners to back someone up.  I don't think there is anything wrong with it, nor do I think that we need any more hard and fast rules to prevent it.  These sometimes ireverant (sp?) one-liners in serious threads are great, it lightens the mood. 

I guess my biggest gripe is when there is post after post by the same person in an on-topic thread, many of them rather short and not always adding much to the disscussion.  Its kinda like email spam sitting in your inbox, one needs to sift through them to reach the relevant messages.

(Please note that I am not complaining about any single person, merely a message board practice.)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 3, 2003)

Djeta Thernadier said:
			
		

> and I'm not trying to *get my post count up * because, well, I just think it's silly.




  Sorry, the metaphor.  I need to go home now.


----------



## Elodan (Sep 3, 2003)

Djeta Thernadier said:
			
		

> I don't know. But it makes me wonder how many of the people we are accusing really just post sometimes brief messages because they are backing someone's opinion up. I do sometimes, and I'm not trying to get my post count up because, well, I just think it's silly. I hope people who read my brief replies don't think I'm doing so intentionally.




Let me just try and clarify what I mean (it always seems clear to me when I type it  ).

It's not short answers, "me too"s or even the jokes that I think are silly.  It's when you see a pattern of replies that don't add anthing to the discussion but only seem to be there to up a post count.

Tom


----------



## Beelzebub (Sep 3, 2003)

> Let me just try and clarify what I mean (it always seems clear to me when I type it ).
> 
> It's not short answers, "me too"s or even the jokes that I think are silly. It's when you see a pattern of replies that don't add anthing to the discussion but only seem to be there to up a post count.
> 
> Tom



I agree.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 3, 2003)

Djeta Thernadier said:
			
		

> I hope people who read my brief replies don't think I'm doing so intentionally.




They won't.  If you were doing so intentionally, you'd have a higher postcount


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 3, 2003)

Here's a little heads up, though.  If you're posting one-line messages, and especially if you've put several of them in one thread, please click the box below the reply window to turn off your signature.  My favorite rule of thumb is that if your signature is longer than your post, you should turn the signature off.  I'm not sure where that came from.  Probably Cyberzombie.  He's got lots of good advice for board etiquette.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 3, 2003)

DM Magic said:
			
		

> Me too.




Yup.


----------



## Darkness (Sep 3, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Yup.



Agreed.


----------



## Creamsteak (Sep 4, 2003)

Darkness said:
			
		

> Agreed.



 Definitely.


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Sep 4, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Here's a little heads up, though.  If you're posting one-line messages, and especially if you've put several of them in one thread, please click the box below the reply window to turn off your signature.  My favorite rule of thumb is that if your signature is longer than your post, you should turn the signature off.  I'm not sure where that came from.  Probably Cyberzombie.  He's got lots of good advice for board etiquette.





That's also one of Marks favorites, he victemised me with it on several occasions.  Who new etiquette counted in hive threads?  

Besides. Huge sigs are fun, they encourge lomger posts.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 4, 2003)

"He has lots of posts, he is probably a spammer who writes before he thinks. I will trust the other member instead".


----------



## Darkness (Sep 4, 2003)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> "He has lots of posts, he is probably a spammer who writes before he thinks. I will trust the other member instead".



The ancient Romans already knew that lack of verbosity doesn't necessarily indicate wisdom.


----------



## tburdett (Sep 4, 2003)

Darkness said:
			
		

> The ancient Romans already knew that lack of verbosity doesn't necessarily indicate wisdom.




On the other hand, you get tired of the people who like to talk or type just to hear or see themselves talk or type.  Say or type something worthwhile that adds to a conversation, not just to fill up the silence or empty space.

Post count and signatures are just sacred cows that have been held over from the days of BBS's and Fidonet.  Neither add any value to the quality of conversation and both often detract from it.


----------



## Darkness (Sep 4, 2003)

tburdett said:
			
		

> On the other hand, you get tired of the people who like to talk or type just to hear or see themselves talk or type. Say or type something worthwhile that adds to a conversation, not just to fill up the silence or empty space.



Hm. I think we're miscommunicating. 

I mean... You are not saying that, e.g., Piratecat's (many) posts are usually not really worthwile, right?
But on the other hand, low posting volume doesn't lead to better post quality; not everyone can usually add something to a discussion, for whatever reason. (Usually just because someone else said it first. )

So... Do we really disagree? Here's my take: Quantity is not a problem; lack of quality is. (In fact, I'm all for people posting as much high-quality stuff as possible. ) But if somebody's posts are lacking in quality, it becomes desirable that aren't posting less rather than more. 



> Post count and signatures are just sacred cows that have been held over from the days of BBS's and Fidonet. Neither add any value to the quality of conversation and both often detract from it.



A-fricking-men, mate.
I've said it time and again*: IMO, turning post count off might be a good idea.

(*When _seriously_ talking about post count, that is. )


----------



## tburdett (Sep 4, 2003)

Darkness said:
			
		

> Hm. I think we're miscommunicating.
> 
> I mean... You are not saying that, e.g., Piratecat's (many) posts are usually not really worthwile, right?
> But on the other hand, low posting volume doesn't lead to better post quality; not everyone can usually add something to a discussion, for whatever reason. (Usually just because someone else said it first. )



Obviously, everything that Piratecat posts is not worthwhile!  Did you miss the memo?   I understood what you were saying, I merely tried to take the opposite position.  Your point was that silence does not equate to wisdom, and I made the counter-point, or at least tried to, that verbosity does not equate to wisdom.


> So... Do we really disagree? Here's my take: Quantity is not a problem; lack of quality is. (In fact, I'm all for people posting as much high-quality stuff as possible. ) But if somebody's posts are lacking in quality, it becomes desirable that aren't posting less rather than more.




I agree that quantity is only a problem if the quality is low.  Of course, the quality of the content is not determined by the authors post count, but by the individual reading the content.

You frequently see systems put in place for 'scoring' and 'filtering' content (see /.).  These systems can really help to reduce the signal to noise ratio, but only if the people 'scoring' the content use a consistent rules based approach for doing so.  These systems are great for encouraging on-topic discussion.  I am not advocating the use of such a system here, as it would harm and stifle the community, I am simply pointing out that such systems exist and work to limit the high quantity, low quality post authors.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 4, 2003)

tburdett said:
			
		

> Post count and signatures are just sacred cows that have been held over from the days of BBS's and Fidonet.  Neither add any value to the quality of conversation and both often detract from it.



Detract from it?  How so?  I'm not buying that one.  Postcount is a completely irrelevant item -- most of the time I don't even notice it when I look at someone's post.  Signatures are a bit annoying if they're big and have big graphics or lots of text, but I still can't see it actually _detracting_ from the conversation in any way.  They're pretty easily ignored, after all.


----------



## Elodan (Sep 4, 2003)

Beelzebub said:
			
		

> I agree.






			
				DM Magic said:
			
		

> Me too.






			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> Yup.






			
				Darkness said:
			
		

> Agreed.






			
				creamsteak said:
			
		

> Definitely.




Shoulda saw that coming.

I've posted four times today, I'm exhausted  .

Tom


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 4, 2003)

All we need to do is find Crotian a time intensive hobby and he'll be too busy to post. Has anybody introducted him to roleplaying games?


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 4, 2003)

All we need to do is find Crotian a time intensive hobby and he'll be too busy to post. Has anybody introduced him to roleplaying games?

(And here we have an example of another way to inflate post count.)


----------



## tburdett (Sep 4, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Detract from it? How so? I'm not buying that one. Postcount is a completely irrelevant item -- most of the time I don't even notice it when I look at someone's post. Signatures are a bit annoying if they're big and have big graphics or lots of text, but I still can't see it actually _detracting_ from the conversation in any way. They're pretty easily ignored, after all.




It is the attitude that post counting encourages that causes problems.  Most people look at post count as irrelevant, but, the few who place value on having a high post count above everything else will decrease the signal to noise ratio significantly by posting garbage just to see that number grow.

Signatures are invasive, off-topic, and unnecessary.  They are simply a plea for attention that interrupts the normal flow of the conversation.

Nothing of value would be lost, at all, if both signatures and post counts were removed.


----------



## Welverin (Sep 4, 2003)

Djeta Thernadier said:
			
		

> I don't know. But it makes me wonder how many of the people we are accusing really just post sometimes brief messages because they are backing someone's opinion up. I do sometimes, and I'm not trying to get my post count up because, well, I just think it's silly. I hope people who read my brief replies don't think I'm doing so intentionally.




If you were trying to do that you wouldn't be very good at it with only a lttle more than four hundred posts. So I think we're safe in assuming you don't care.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 4, 2003)

tburdett said:
			
		

> Nothing of value would be lost, at all, if both signatures and post counts were removed.



Nothing of value _to you._  There's not need to pretend you speak for the entire population of the message boards, or that you're speaking about objective truths.  As I said earlier, post count isn't really a big deal, but it is interesting at least, so I enjoy the fact that it's there.  Signatures on the other hand, I'd miss if they were taken completely away.  Signatures allow me to have a link to my Dungeoncraft articles without having to spam about it all the time.  They also allow me to quickly scroll through a thread to find where I last posted and take up reading from that point on.  Those two features are of considerable value to me.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 4, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Nothing of value _to you._Signatures on the other hand, I'd miss if they were taken completely away.  Signatures allow me to have a link to my Dungeoncraft articles without having to spam about it all the time.  They also allow me to quickly scroll through a thread to find where I last posted and take up reading from that point on.  Those two features are of considerable value to me.




I agree with your first point, Sigs do have some purpose. The second part is achieved just as well through Avitars though. I intentionally keep a distinct avitar for this reason.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Sep 4, 2003)

Elodan said:
			
		

> Shoulda saw that coming.
> 
> Tom




You forgot my "I Agree" post at the begining. Plus now I get to post again further raising my count.

On a more serious side your post covers the multi-quotes in a post concept. As you can see by my posting above that I do not always subscribe to this aproach. I personally perfer to post seperate replies if the subject matter is distict enough. I find it easier to keep track of seperate sub-threads this way, not as a means of boosting post count.


----------



## haiiro (Sep 4, 2003)

tburdett said:
			
		

> Nothing of value would be lost, at all, if both signatures and post counts were removed.




I think sigs are great, although there are exceptions. Apart from sometimes being useful, they're one more window into what someone else is like (which I think is generally a good thing). If I haven't seen many of a particular person's posts before, their choice of username, avatar and sig (as well as custom title, if any) are all I have to go on.

Sure, some of them are too large and not everyone turns theirs off if they post more than once in a thread, but these aren't major problems IMO. And if they are, you can always turn them off yourself.

And for the record, I think postcount is reasonably useful as well.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Sep 4, 2003)

I like Dinkledogs point about the relative length of post and sig. It is truly annoying when someone says "I agree", and leaves their 10 line sig with dancing monkey-bear graphic on underneath.

NB: If anyone HAS  dancing monkey-bear graphic in their sig, I'm sorry, I didn't know, and that comment wasn't aimed at you. 

Aside from that, postcount means nothing, and the more you have, the less it means. Ask Crothian. Besides, it's not like anyone is ever going to top him, so the chances of anyone else becoming #1 poster are so minimal it's pointless to try.

Oh and postcount = postcount +1.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 4, 2003)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> NB: If anyone HAS  dancing monkey-bear graphic in their sig, I'm sorry, I didn't know, and that comment wasn't aimed at you.



Not exactly a dancing monkey-bear, but close...  and entertaining nonetheless.


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 5, 2003)

You know what they say, the bigger the 'boo!' the smaller the... 

(If you're too young to get the inference, good.)


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 5, 2003)

tburdett said:
			
		

> Signatures are invasive, off-topic, and unnecessary.  They are simply a plea for attention that interrupts the normal flow of the conversation.
> 
> Nothing of value would be lost, at all, if both signatures and post counts were removed.




I guess it's unfortunate for you, then, that neither signatures nor post counts look to be removed any time soon.  Post counts are useful for us as moderators and administrators, and probably for everyone else, too, to help gauge how new someone is to the scene, and how likely a rules breach was innocent error.  

Signatures, as Joshua pointed out, have all kinds of uses, too.  Not the least is to have embedded links to personal webpages, story hours, and ongoing threads that are of interest.  Granted, overlong signatures and large pictures in signatures can be a problem.  In the meantime, you should still be able to exercise the option that turns off everyone's signatures when you browse the boards.

Quite simply, there is value in both signatures and post counts (at least in the mods, admins and most importantly Morrus' opinion).  Don't expect them to go away any time soon.


----------



## Dungannon (Sep 5, 2003)

It may be that the person who inspired this thread is a new user and thinks that a higher postcount will result in people having a higher opinion of him.  They haven't yet discovered the fact that "Postcount Means Nothingtm Crothian" and his actions actually turn people off to what he has to say.  I'm sure once Piratecat explains the situation to him you'll see an improvement in his activity.

I know when I first started on these boards I had a habit of putting up posts that added very little to the discussion until Darkness kindly pointed out to me that some people took exception to my habit.  That, and surviving the Great Hivemind Postcount Purge, helped me improve my posting habits and I, hopefully, have improved my reputation as an intelligent poster on ENWorld.

I've learned that postcount truly means nothing and now keep my mindless drivel to the Hivemind threads.


----------



## tburdett (Sep 5, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> I guess it's unfortunate for you, then, that neither signatures nor post counts look to be removed any time soon. Post counts are useful for us as moderators and administrators, and probably for everyone else, too, to help gauge how new someone is to the scene, and how likely a rules breach was innocent error.



If they bothered me that much I would probably not be here in the first place.  As far as post count goes, I would think that the users joining date could serve the same purpose.



> Signatures, as Joshua pointed out, have all kinds of uses, too. Not the least is to have embedded links to personal webpages, story hours, and ongoing threads that are of interest. Granted, overlong signatures and large pictures in signatures can be a problem. In the meantime, you should still be able to exercise the option that turns off everyone's signatures when you browse the boards.



I understand the variety of uses that a signature can be put to, I just do not feel that any of them add to the value of the conversation that they are displayed in.  Each signature is a mini-hijack that is also likely to be off-topic.  Am I making a statement that is factually false?  I do not think so, but opinions may vary.

I make full use of the board features to remove signatures, graphics and avatars.



> Quite simply, there is value in both signatures and post counts (at least in the mods, admins and most importantly Morrus' opinion). Don't expect them to go away any time soon.



You are all entitled to your opinions.  Mine differs.  I did not expect that there would be any changes.


----------



## coyote6 (Sep 5, 2003)

tburdett said:
			
		

> As far as post count goes, I would think that the users joining date could serve the same purpose.




Not really; the date someone registered for an account doesn't say anything about how much or how often that person has read the boards. Post count means that they've almost certainly read at least that many messages ('cause they either read the replies to their new thread, or were replying to someone else's post).


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 5, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Not exactly a dancing monkey-bear, but close...  and entertaining nonetheless.




Not exectly either...


----------



## Hackenslash (Sep 13, 2003)

*Hmmm...Posts too long or too short !!!*

Hi All,

I have read every thread on this topic and have to say that I would agree with the general concensus of opinion, in that what matters is quality of the post, not how many posts you have on the boards. On a similar note, however, I have been critisised for my posts being too long or with out appropriate paragraph spacings....Do we really need to be so nitt picky ??? Sometimes a person in his/her enthusiasim for the topic may examine all angles and post a long reply but forget to put spacings etc...so, Can a post ever really be too long ??? Oh well, just my 2 cents, and for what it's worth, it seems to me that there are indeed some people who post for no other reason than to see their post count go up, I have seen them, there're out there and they are gonna get ya...Bwwaaahahahaha !!!     Cheers all


----------



## BSF (Sep 13, 2003)

I avoided posting in this thread when it first appeared because I found myself a little annoyed with a particular poster as well. Rapid fire responses with a one line addition to the thread and another line noting what the post count was at that instant.  Bleah.  Oh yeah, and a really large sig.  But, I wanted to let it go.  After all, that particular poster also has some really good posts out there and clearly just had too much free time at the moment.    Besides, it is not always the best idea to post when you are overly annoyed, I didn't want to say something I might later regret.  And, the topic was being addressed better than I could have done it at the time.

Beelzebub - Thanks for bringing it up.  Your post was polite in that you avoided any clear finger pointing.  Heck, you an I might not have even been annoyed with the same person at the same time.  Without naming anyone, you allowed everyone to kind of vent a bit.  

~~~~~

On a similar note, I am really a bit curious on how well my posts are received.  I'm not sure if I am doing things right or wrong since coming out of lurker mode.  It seems like there have been a few topics that I post to and everything kind of shuts down.  A few people have been kind enough to indicate that they liked something I said, and I appreciate that!  Maybe everyone is too polite to tell me I am a dolt?  I guess I could post a thread about it and see what everyone thinks, but that seems silly.  Maybe I just worry too much.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 13, 2003)

Can sigs still be turned off?  That might solve the problem for people who don't think they are needed.  

I do think too many people have their sig on every single post.  Post the sig once in a thread, then turn it off for the rest of the posts.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Sep 13, 2003)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> IOn a similar note, I am really a bit curious on how well my posts are received. I'm not sure if I am doing things right or wrong since coming out of lurker mode. It seems like there have been a few topics that I post to and everything kind of shuts down. A few people have been kind enough to indicate that they liked something I said, and I appreciate that! Maybe everyone is too polite to tell me I am a dolt? I guess I could post a thread about it and see what everyone thinks, but that seems silly. Maybe I just worry too much.




I had the same thing happen to me for a while when I first de-lurked.  I found that it was helpful to post to "fun" threads (not necessarily OT threads, mind you), so that people got a feel for my personality and posting style.  Then they were more apt to look at a thread I started and say, "Ah, TW.  Wonder what that kook's got to say now."  Movies and TV is a great forum to do this in.  

I wouldn't take the "I post, and the topic dies" thingy to seriously.  I've written some absolutely smashing commentary that just so happens to be the last post on a given dead topic.  And it can't be my writing, no sirree.  I mean, even Henry is wise enough to quote me in his .sig.

You should all quote me in your .sig.  Don't you all want to be held in the same esteem as Henry?



See, now that's the real mark of an uberposter.  Post count's nothing.  Getting quoted in a mod's .sig, that's priceless.


----------



## garyh (Sep 13, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> See, now that's the real mark of an uberposter.  Post count's nothing.  Getting quoted in a mod's .sig, that's priceless.




Indeed.


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 13, 2003)

One thing that bugs me is those people who post multiple times to the same thread.


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 13, 2003)

Either repeating what he said in the first post, or in effect continuing the post from the previous one.


----------



## mythusmage (Sep 13, 2003)

This I find extremely annoying, and I was wondering if anybody else felt the same way.


----------



## BSF (Sep 14, 2003)

TW - I will take your words of advice and not worry too much about it.  If I am being an idiot, somebody will probably point that out, right?  

Mythusmage - Yes, I do find the IM style of posting to be somewhat annoying.


----------



## haiiro (Sep 14, 2003)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> TW - I will take your words of advice and not worry too much about it.




I'll second TW's comment on the "I killed the thread" feeling. I de-lurked in December, and I still seem to have the magic ability to make threads sink like a stone.  Definitely don't worry about it.

For what it's worth, just asking how your posts are being received is a good sign -- and from what I've seen, you're doing just fine.


----------



## Welverin (Sep 14, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Can sigs still be turned off?  That might solve the problem for people who don't think they are needed.
> 
> I do think too many people have their sig on every single post.  Post the sig once in a thread, then turn it off for the rest of the posts.




It would be better if it could be done the other way around, have them default to off and force people to remember to turn them on for their first post.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Sep 14, 2003)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Can sigs still be turned off? That might solve the problem for people who don't think they are needed.




Any viewing of a sig by anybody is completely voluntary.

Or have you forgotten that in your User CP (under Options) there are checkboxes to turn off sigs, avatars, and/or images?

If sigs bug you, don't whine that they take up room on your screen, just turn 'em off.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Sep 14, 2003)

I'm going to assume by the fact that I haven't received an email from Piratecat that I am not the specific individual who is getting on people's nerves.

My take on it is that people come to these boards to have a discussion, have fun, or distract themselves for a while. I have a hard time believing that it would be of any value to put a lot of restrictions on the posts, type of posts, or frequency of posts on people. In fact, I think what it would end up doing is driving people away to other boards where they're allowed more freedom. Sure, there are trends that are annoying. Believe me, I get extremely annoyed whenever I see a thread posted that is attempting to deconstruct an unreleased product that nobody has seen yet, or a thread that accuses Wizards of being an evil heartless corporation when none of you have enough of the facts behind certain decisions that are made. 

Regardless, I don't complain about these things because this is, after all, a fan site. As a fan site, I would like to point out two things: fan is short for fanatic, and a large number of fans of any genre be it a game, movie, TV show, or novel, have extremely annoying habits as a natural byproduct their extreme enthusiasm for whatever it is they're into.


----------



## Silver Moon (Sep 14, 2003)

haiiro said:
			
		

> I'll second TW's comment on the "I killed the thread" feeling. I de-lurked in December, and I still seem to have the magic ability to make threads sink like a stone.



See, and I thought it was just me who had the ability to kill a thread discussion.      I don't hit the General Discussion Thread that often and it's usually just a case of my jumping onto a thread when the discussion is just about finished.  And now that each forum only shows 25 threads rather than 40 I imagine I'll start missing discussions altogether unless I go to the effort of digging back a few pages.


----------



## Djeta Thernadier (Sep 15, 2003)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> TW - I will take your words of advice and not worry too much about it.  If I am being an idiot, somebody will probably point that out, right?
> 
> Mythusmage - Yes, I do find the IM style of posting to be somewhat annoying.




I do too. And I did it today because I needed to talk real time with someone about a technical thing and I couldn't get into my email, and that person wasn't on AIM.

I felt really dumb.

Really. Really. Dumb.


Another thing is what TW said. I often post in the "fun" threads because I am relatively new to gaming as a player and where I tend to just read and not post in the On Topic threads; I want people to know I'm here and I'm interested and what I'm about. The more comfortable I feel with other ENworld people , the more comfortable I feel asking them an On Topic question...and I think getting to know people in the *fun* threads is a good way to do this. And lately I've been psoting in more and more On Topic threads as a result.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Sep 15, 2003)

I wouldn't mind seeing the post count go... I often wonder if people think I just post to post and it there was no post counts then it would not be an issue.  

The real reason why I post is that I have a job where I work 12 hours in a row with really nothing to do, well at least on my mids, and this board is pretty much one of my forms of entertainment.  Usually I ramble on for quite sometime so it's not like I'm posting to say "Hi and then bye" and I've also dropped my signature down to almost nothingness and I hope it doesn't bug anyone...

Plus the post per a day is pretty embarrassing when you average over 10 a day….


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 15, 2003)

But now that we can "quick post..."


----------



## MerakSpielman (Sep 15, 2003)

Maybe just make post counts a little more inconspicuous?

What do you think of removing post count from the general fourm-reading screens (like this one), bit leaving it in the user's profile, so it's still there if you want to look at it.


----------



## haiiro (Sep 16, 2003)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> Maybe just make post counts a little more inconspicuous?




I actually miss post count being shown with join date and location. With the new boards, it shows up at the end of the post -- so if it's a long post, I don't notice it right away. To each their own, and all that.


----------



## BSF (Sep 17, 2003)

Baraendur - I agree with you overall.  I don't want there to be many restrictions on what people can/cannot post.  I stop by here because I like gaming and this is a group of gamers.    Heck, I might even make some new friends here.  My gripe comes from people posting a one line response and annoting the post count, then posting another post with the same thing, then another.  I mean, if you could post 3 posts in a row, why couldn't you wrap all of them up into 1 post?  In one particular case, it seemed like the line annotating to current post count was more important than any attempt to participate in the conversation.  

So No, you are not the person that was bothering me at all.    The thing is, the person *I* am referring to has many posts that I found interesting and relevant.  It was just this sudden spurt of pointless posts that I started to get irritated at.  

Djeta - I think I know what posts you are referring to.  I wouldn't criticize you for that.  Maybe that is because you obviously had a question for a specific person and were trying to get in contact with them.  Maybe it is because you weren't annotating your posts with your current post count.  

Brother Shatterstone - Actually, my gripe really isn't about sig length either.  I like sigs since many people have interesting information in them.  Mine is less than exciting, but I wanted to a) Point out how cool Sialia is!  b) give people another nudge toward the story hours.  I like the story hours because I get to see how other people construct games and it gives me inspiration.  Although, I would probably be better off changing my sig to at least include a link to the story hours.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 18, 2003)

in the past the mods have sent emails to posters to "direct" them in the proper etiquette of posting.

i'm assuming they still do this, but who knows.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 18, 2003)

double post.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 18, 2003)

haiiro said:
			
		

> I actually miss post count being shown with join date and location. With the new boards, it shows up at the end of the post -- so if it's a long post, I don't notice it right away. To each their own, and all that.



Something I wish I did when I joined was used my joined date as my birthday for my handle, this way HoE would have an age attached to him.


----------

