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

[Piratecat]

Me too.

Yup.

 

[Darkness]

Yup.

Agreed.

 

[Creamsteak]

Agreed.

Definitely.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

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]

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

 

[Darkness]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.