# About postcount off in the off-topic forum.



## Turanil (Jul 17, 2005)

I vaguely remember to have read Darkness saying that there was a thread on this subject, but I am unable to find it. So I begin one, hoping it's not a double thread. 

Well, there has been a controverse lately (in the off topic forum), and I know that I myself sometimes post more for the sake of posting than anything else... Now, on the long run, the space available on the server and the bandwidth are not infinite. 

So, I guess that if Off-Topic Forum posts weren't counted in the postcount, there would be (how to say that...) a greater percentage of genuine threads and comments in the off-topic forum. 

I thought to make a poll about it: so, do you think it is a good idea to have postcounts not count the posts in the off-topic forums?


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jul 17, 2005)

I don't really giving a flying toot as to whether off topic posts are included in postcount or not.


----------



## Bront (Jul 17, 2005)

I think you should have seperated the last section into Don't care, and Yes, count them.


----------



## Turanil (Jul 17, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> I don't really giving a flying toot as to whether off topic posts are included in postcount or not.



*I am waiting to see that* when (if) what I suggest is ever implemented. I predict that the posting rate will divided by half if this is ever implemented, hopefully only to leave the meaningfull/funny/genuine stuff. In any case, I know that myself will post less in Off-Topic if it was implemented. I am also pretty sure this would sign the death of the hivemind threads...


----------



## reveal (Jul 17, 2005)

I don't care either way. If someone is posting in Off-Topic simply to bump up their postcount then, ya, they will not post much anymore. But I think most people will continue to post whether or not it counts in the OT forum.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 17, 2005)

Actually, we've done that before.   I don't know about post rate, but in the end the the admins decided to turn postcount back on.

I prefer it on, personally.  But postcount doesn't matter anyway.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> I prefer it on, personally.  But postcount doesn't matter anyway.




Seems like a contradiction, there.  If poscout _really_ didn't matter, then you wouldn't care if the posts there (or anywhere) were counted, because it'd be meanignless data.  Why care if meaningless data is recorded or not?

The proof is in the pudding.  If postcount didn't matter, people would not refer to it.  If it didn't matter, people would feel no need to celebrate milestones, or post to increase it, etc. Individual posters may or may not give a whit about postcount, but on the whole, it seems that it _does_ matter.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 17, 2005)

Though it doesn't *really* matter, I'd rather see the postcounts kept separately.

Under each person's name you'd see:

Posts:
Off-Topic Posts:

For many people, I'm sure the stats would be quite heavily skewed one way or the other.


----------



## reveal (Jul 17, 2005)

Unfortunately, I think this poll is more reactionary than anything else. As far as I can tell, some folks are upset that Frukathka posts a lot of replies in a row and a lot of replies that consist of one or two words or simply a few emoticons in a row and nothing more. They make comments about him "catching up to Crothian" and things like that.

Otherwise, I don't think it would be an issue at all. One person doing something you dislike is not a reason to disable a feature for everyone.

And I don't think too many people care about postcounts anyway. True, there are a lot of "My #####th thread!" posts in OT but that doesn't seem to affect any other aspect of EN World. As *William Ronald* so elequently pointed out in this thread, people of EN World are inclusive and just plain polite. If postcount mattered as much as some people make out, I don't think you'd see as much inclusion because people would look at postcount and decide whether or not you were "worthy" of their time.

And isn't what the OT forum is supposed to be about is posting stuff that is "Off-Topic?" Posting things that are mainly tongue-in-cheek? People saying "Damn you all! Stop posting interesting things," or the Hivemind threads, which have been here a LOT longer than Frukathka has been on this board,  or "30 Hornets vs. 30,000 Honey Bees."

I guess my point, if I ever had one, is that if you post/reply in forums other than OT, it becomes a problem if you're not contributing to a thread but simply seeming to post just to post or just replying to reply. But if it's OT and you're not being rude or abusive, what does it matter what you post about or how you reply?


----------



## Turanil (Jul 17, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> But if it's OT and you're not being rude or abusive, what does it matter what you post about or how you reply?



I had the vague sensation of being spammed lately, and then saw other people with the same concern. So I made this poll, because I believe (despite having been told otherwise) that this spamming wouldn't occur if it had no effect on the postcount. I have nothing against the poster, but would prefer to read his real contributions to the discussions, not his effort to "catch up with Crothian". But well, I feel that my comments bring this thread closer to being closed.


----------



## reveal (Jul 17, 2005)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I had the vague sensation of being spammed lately, and then saw other people with the same concern. So I made this poll, because I believe (despite having been told otherwise) that this spamming wouldn't occur if it had no effect on the postcount. I have nothing against the poster, but would prefer to read his real contributions to the discussions, not his effort to "catch up with Crothian". But well, I feel that my comments bring this thread closer to being closed.




And that is why I think that this poll is unnecessary, as was the thread started by *der_kluge*. If you want to take someone to task about something, I don't think it's right to start a thread about them or create a poll that is a thinly veiled to apply to everyone when, in reality, it's simply because of one person.

As was pointed out in the thread by *der_kluge*, if you dislike the "spam," then either contact that person directly, in private, or contact a mod and let them warn the offender. I don't think anyone on this board wants to be disciplined in public.


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 17, 2005)

_IF _ someone was highly motivated by postcount, and _IF _ postcount was turned off in OT ... wouldn't that result in this poster posting more junk in other forums?  If any forum is to be the dumping ground for "junk posts" it should be OT.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Jul 17, 2005)

I've never really understood why we count posts to begin with.  But - if we're going to - we might as well count all of 'em.


----------



## Brain (Jul 17, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> _IF _ someone was highly motivated by postcount, and _IF _ postcount was turned off in OT ... wouldn't that result in this poster posting more junk in other forums?  If any forum is to be the dumping ground for "junk posts" it should be OT.



I agree with this.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 17, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> _IF _ someone was highly motivated by postcount, and _IF _ postcount was turned off in OT ... wouldn't that result in this poster posting more junk in other forums?  If any forum is to be the dumping ground for "junk posts" it should be OT.




I probably should have read this before I voted to can post counting in the Off Topic forum…  It does make perfect sense.  :\ 

Is there away to find out how many off topic posts one has?


----------



## DaveStebbins (Jul 17, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Though it doesn't *really* matter, I'd rather see the postcounts kept separately.
> 
> Under each person's name you'd see:
> 
> ...



As soon as you start making value judgements about "this post counts more than that one" you open up the entire "where do you stop?" can of worms. Should bumps count? What about posts in "real" forums which add no value to the discussion? Why should those count when posts which are genuinely and personally helpful in off-topic don't?

As QD said, if we are going to count posts, we should count all of them.

-Dave


----------



## Crothian (Jul 17, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> _IF _ someone was highly motivated by postcount, and _IF _ postcount was turned off in OT ... wouldn't that result in this poster posting more junk in other forums?  If any forum is to be the dumping ground for "junk posts" it should be OT.




it might at first, but the mods would stop that very fast.  

I say turn Postcount off


----------



## Michael Morris (Jul 17, 2005)

We can't. The welcome thread in Off topic is linked to a greeting message in the announcement bar that launches whenever the system sees a user with 0 posts (Or did you think it was magical how the new users always found the welcome thread even when it was 3 or 4 pages deep ). If post count in that forum didn't count the message wouldn't go away - leading to a barrage of complaint messages from new users here in meta that I don't want to deal with.

The alternative, moving the welcome thread to a forum where posts count - say here in meta - isn't too attractive either because if any thread is "off topic", it's a "Hi I'm new here" collection.

So the thread was left in off-topic and post counts for that forum where turned back on.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jul 17, 2005)

Couldn't postcount be counted but not shown? That's effectively the same as turning it off.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 18, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> _IF _ someone was highly motivated by postcount, and _IF _ postcount was turned off in OT ... wouldn't that result in this poster posting more junk in other forums?  If any forum is to be the dumping ground for "junk posts" it should be OT.




I disagree.  It's very easy to comment in off-topic about *every* thread *and* be relevant to the thread.  It's not so easy to do so in the regular forums.  Of course, the hivemind threads (not allowed in the on-topic fora) are a very significant postcount producer for some.



			
				DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> As soon as you start making value judgements about "this post counts more than that one" you open up the entire "where do you stop?" can of worms.




I dunno.  It could degenerate into that, but simply separating on-topic from off-topic wouldn't make any value judgement - simply note a forum count.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 18, 2005)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> As soon as you start making value judgements about "this post counts more than that one" you open up the entire "where do you stop?" can of worms. Should bumps count? What about posts in "real" forums which add no value to the discussion? Why should those count when posts which are genuinely and personally helpful in off-topic don't?




I think Dave put it well.

People come to EN World for different things, some to PbP, some to help answer Rules questions, some to talk about Movies and Books, some to talk about d20 gaming in general and some to socialize with online friends in Off-Topic.  For some post count is important, for others not so much.  In either case it is an online community where everyone comes for one reason for another.  If post count isn't your thing (and I am not saying it should be) I don't see why we should necessarily say it is a bad thing.  It just might not be the the reason you come to this online community.

From what I have seen most of the more or less obvious posts to simply increase post count occur in the Off-Topic Forum.  Of course there is also some very decent discussion that goes on in that forum about items that are off-topic.  The main place one sees high rates of conversational posting are in the hivemind.  That's easy enough to not read if you have no interest in it.  Off-Topic is really a place that seems like it is a place to let your hair down so to speak, which is a good thing in my opinion, a valuable part of this community.

If mulitple replies in a row is an issue, then perhaps we should politely remind people of the netiquette of replying in a single post with multiple quotes in that post to reduce "clutter".  This may do the most to alleviate any hard feelings.

::shrug::  I guess I am saying this is an online community.  Some things will happen that you like and some things will happen that you don't.  Even if post count isn't important to you, it doesn't necessarily mean we should spoil the fun of those who come here for that reason (especially since it appears to be contained to the Off-Topic Forum).


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I think this poll is more reactionary than anything else.




I think Fruthaka's behavior is merely the vector for folks expressing a larger concern.  Some folk like postcount, other's don't, and this sort of thing comes up on occasion as a result of that undercurrent.  Same discussion, different trigger.


----------



## Zenodotus of Ephesus (Jul 18, 2005)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> I think Dave put it well.




That's why everyone loves The Steb.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 18, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I think Fruthaka's behavior is merely the vector for folks expressing a larger concern.




Then its truly misplaced...  Frukathka's average posts per day isn't much higher than my own...  and its a far cry from Crothian's or Rystil Arden's.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 18, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Then its truly misplaced...  Frukathka's average posts per day isn't much higher than my own...  and its a far cry from Crothian's or Rystil Arden's.




well, we now know who the spammers are


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 18, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> well, we now know who the spammers are




Hmmm, maybe I missed my mark as I was trying to imply that no one was a spammer...  :\


----------



## Crothian (Jul 18, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Hmmm, maybe I missed my mark as I was trying to imply that no one was a spammer...  :\





or I messed up with my dry Ohio humor....


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 18, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> or I messed up with my dry Ohio humor....



 What humor…?

_rimshot..._


----------



## Crothian (Jul 18, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> What humor…?
> 
> _rimshot..._




Actually, that is a very common response to many of my jokes...my one goal is to entertain myself.  If someone else happens to get entertained it is entirely on accident.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jul 18, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> well, we now know who the spammers are



 Hey, I'm not a spammer, or at least I don't think I am--I don't even really post that much in off-topic anymore 

Oh, I see--just a joke


----------



## Darkness (Jul 18, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> I was trying to imply that no one was a spammer...  :\



Of course _you_ would say that, mr. 11,000+ posts.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Then its truly misplaced...




No, it isn't.  Don't mistake the current inspiration for the larger concern.  Some folks have issues with postcount, and have some valid arguments against it.  How they come to be reminded of that so that does not invalidate those arguments, or mean their thinking is "misplaced".


----------



## reveal (Jul 18, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> No, it isn't.  Don't mistake the current inspiration for the larger concern.  Some folks have issues with postcount, and have some valid arguments against it.  How they come to be reminded of that so that does not invalidate those arguments, or mean their thinking is "misplaced".




But that's assuming that the people who are "bothered" were bothered before. One could also assume that it's being reactionary because they don't like how one person is "spamming" them. If they have previously argued against allowing postcount to continue then I want to see a "this is yet another example of how postcount is taken to seriously" post or something of that nature. What I don't want to see is a reactionary thread/poll because they don't like the posting habits of *one* person and decide to blow it out of proportion and make it into a "board-wide problem."


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 18, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> But that's assuming that the people who are "bothered" were bothered before. One could also assume that it's being reactionary because they don't like how one person is "spamming" them. If they have previously argued against allowing postcount to continue then I want to see a "this is yet another example of how postcount is taken to seriously" post or something of that nature. What I don't want to see is a reactionary thread/poll because they don't like the posting habits of *one* person and decide to blow it out of proportion and make it into a "board-wide problem."




I agree that if this is a reaction to one person, then a thread like this is not appropriate.  

The value of postcount is apparently different for each of us.  I used to think high post count was a good way to tell who was a prolific poster that has a lot of experience on these boards.  Now, however, it just seems to me to be mostly about how chatty someone is.  This is not necessarily a good or bad thing, but the significance/usefulness of postcount has been diminished in my eyes.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 18, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> No, it isn't.  Don't mistake the current inspiration for the larger concern.  Some folks have issues with postcount, and have some valid arguments against it.  How they come to be reminded of that so that does not invalidate those arguments, or mean their thinking is "misplaced".




Sure, they can have their concerns, and I do share a number of them, but they shouldn’t be targeting one individual users when it’s post count as a whole they have issue with.

Call me old fashion but I see that as being rude and misplacing the subject at hand.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 18, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm not a spammer, or at least I don't think I am--I don't even really post that much in off-topic anymore




I would agree.   At one point in time you probably where a spammer, and labeled so with good reason, but now your productive energies have been harnessed and focused on PbP so a spammer you be no longer.


----------



## DaveStebbins (Jul 19, 2005)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> I think Dave put it well.





			
				Zenodotus of Ephesus said:
			
		

> That's why everyone loves The Steb.



Wow. Groupies.     

Am I gonna have to wear sunglasses at GenCon?   

-Dave


----------



## reveal (Jul 19, 2005)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> Wow. Groupies.
> 
> Am I gonna have to wear sunglasses at GenCon?
> 
> -Dave




You already know my feelings.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 19, 2005)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> Am I gonna have to wear sunglasses at GenCon?




I think you just might... And I believe there are some brownies involved somewhere if I recall correctly...


----------



## Umbran (Jul 19, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> But that's assuming that the people who are "bothered" were bothered before.




Actually, in my particular case, it is more presumption - I presume to postulate a link between this annoyance and other annoyances I have observed, thaat seem (to me) to be related.  Whether or not the person was ever annoyed before, it could be another symptom of the already known ailment.



> One could also assume that it's being reactionary because they don't like how one person is "spamming" them.




One could, but we all know about assuming, right?  And we also know that the person in question is reasonably active on the boards, and probably reading this thread, so we could do something that might elsewhere be unthinkable - we could stop talking about the person as if they weren't here, and _ask them_ if they feel it is more a reaction to the one person or to the general issue.  Comment, Turanil?

Also, I wonder at the term "reactionary".  It is a bit loaded with connotations.  Not all reactions are reactionary.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 19, 2005)

I like postcount.

joe b.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 20, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Actually, that is a very common response to many of my jokes...my one goal is to entertain myself.  If someone else happens to get entertained it is entirely on accident.




Been by yourself too long in your life and got too used to amusing only yourself?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jul 20, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> I would agree.   At one point in time you probably where a spammer, and labeled so with good reason, but now your productive energies have been harnessed and focused on PbP so a spammer you be no longer.



 Actually, I really didn't start as a spammer.  Take a look at my first 1000 posts, and you'll see a lot of content, just in the Rules, House Rules, and General forums rather than PbP


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 20, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Actually, I really didn't start as a spammer.  Take a look at my first 1000 posts, and you'll see a lot of content, just in the Rules, House Rules, and General forums rather than PbP



What about you 3K detour through the hive threads?


----------



## DaveStebbins (Jul 20, 2005)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> I think you just might... And I believe there are some brownies involved somewhere if I recall correctly...



Yup, there will definitely be some (reputedly magic) brownies in the car with me. However, between myself and my friend, I'm not sure how much, if any, will actually make it to Indianapolis. It's going to be a loooong trip.


----------



## reveal (Jul 20, 2005)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> Yup, there will definitely be some (reputedly magic) brownies in the car with me. However, between myself and my friend, I'm not sure how much, if any, will actually make it to Indianapolis. It's going to be a loooong trip.




If it were me, they'd be lucky to make it past the driveway.


----------



## Bront (Jul 20, 2005)

Post count here does have it's use.  In particular, a user with a higher post count is generaly less likely to drop a PbP game, but that could be just as true with a player with an older join date.

However, it is not an end all of who will or won't, because things happen.

I think postcount is something fun to keep track of simply from a fun stat's perspective, but it doesn't realy mean anything or make one poster more valuable than another.

Of course, I enjoy breaking down stats in sports too, so I might be a bit biased about a stat


----------



## arwink (Jul 21, 2005)

I don't mind the automated post-count. It's certainly faster than attempting to do it by hand.


----------

