Number of Posts???

[David Schuttler]

I f I post in this topic as to a favored thought or a non-favored thought will this still be considered a useless post? Since it has already been ruled by mods are all the post above useless?
:lol: :lol:

No offense hopefully is taken but what some call useless others do not and vice versa ......

My opinion on the subject is, so what

 

[KMcCallister]

No.

(And I'm still in 78th place)

 

[Mikey Gribble]

Whatever floats the moderators boat is fine with me. I have noticed that some of the people who haven't been members very long are climbing the charts rather quickly on post counts and the vast majority of their posts are frivolous IMO. Maybe doing away with the post count will help keep worthless posts down. I guess it just depends on what motivates these people to post.

 

[Robert Dewey]

Originally posted by Michael Gribble
Maybe doing away with the post count will help keep worthless posts down.

On the contrary, it could just make it harder to identify those with the frivolous post counts (i.e. someone with 1200 posts, but you rarely see them in the Target Area or Weather Lab). I am just wondering who seriously has competitions on post counts here in ST? If there really are people who are posting frivolously just to rank higher, then they shouldn't be here in the first place, and they shouldn't be that hard to spot (i.e. look at the post ratios).

 

[KMcCallister]

Originally posted by rdewey+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rdewey)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Michael Gribble

Maybe doing away with the post count will help keep worthless posts down.

On the contrary, it could just make it harder to identify those with the frivolous post counts (i.e. someone with 1200 posts, but you rarely see them in the Target Area or Weather Lab). I am just wondering who seriously has competitions on post counts here in ST? If there really are people who are posting frivolously just to rank higher, then they shouldn't be here in the first place, and they shouldn't be that hard to spot (i.e. look at the post ratios).[/b]

If it quacks like a duck....

(Yes! I just took over sole possession of 77th place!)

 

[nickgrillo]

Originally posted by rdewey+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rdewey)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Michael Gribble

Maybe doing away with the post count will help keep worthless posts down.

On the contrary, it could just make it harder to identify those with the frivolous post counts (i.e. someone with 1200 posts, but you rarely see them in the Target Area or Weather Lab). I am just wondering who seriously has competitions on post counts here in ST? If there really are people who are posting frivolously just to rank higher, then they shouldn't be here in the first place, and they shouldn't be that hard to spot (i.e. look at the post ratios).[/b]

There are a few new members who have posted dramatically since joining - and many of the posts make no sense or are invaluable. Seriously, even after this restructuring - not much has changed with the quality of posts...

In absolutely no way am I knocking down ST, but I am just making a point here. Instead of getting rid of post counts, just get rid of the useless post/posters. There is plenty of mods on the board :wink: :wink:

 

[Dick McGowan]

Yeah, I can think of a few "worthless" posters on this board. Took the words right out of my mouth, Nick. 8)

 

[B Ozanne]

and many of the posts make no sense or are invaluable

Just so you know...invaluable is the same as valuable. Just like flammable and inflammable, those both mean something is likely to catch fire.

I'd like to stick up for ST here. I have never found a more structured, quality forum on the internet. At least, not for anything I've been interested in. Has anybody ever checked out the Wright Weather forum, for example? Its a cluster of frantic posting, aliases, and endless topics. Everytime a cloud pops up somebody starts a thread.

As for the post count, I don't care. A little dissapointed though since I am 2 away from 1000.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

A while back somebody brought up the idea of some sort of rating system where members can rank other members posts. I think this is the only way that you are going to do away with frivolous posts. Cracking down on the frivolous posters just isn't going to happen because it's arbitrary and nobody(moderators) wants to be the whistle blower. If you had a rating system, you could bring back the post count and stick the cumulative rating underneath it. A high post count with a low rating would make you look like a real jackass. Problem solved.

 

[Robert Dewey]

I agree with Michael Gribble. Would it be possible to put the ratio's up, or have some sort of rating system? I'd have no problem with that.

But then as Bill stated... ST is one of the HIGHEST quality forums out there, if not the highest quality. Heck, I'm even registered at various private investment group forums and business forums, and they don't even have the structure that ST has. While other forums consist of mostly frivolous posts, spammers, and pure idiots, at least on ST that group is by large the minority.

 

[Pat Lawrence]

I've a tendency to stay out of the meteorological discussions for the most part, so most of my posts will always find their home in the bar and grill section. I do tend to get a little chatty at times, but I couldn't care less about number of posts.

I do pay attention to the more meteorological sections of the board...but I'll leave most of the posting in these areas to others.

Sorry if my new comments have offended anybody

Pat

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

Next up... a ban on crazy hair avatars!

Aaron

 

[Sam Sagnella]

Originally posted by rdewey
I agree with Michael Gribble. Would it be possible to put the ratio's up, or have some sort of rating system? I'd have no problem with that.

I agree - this seems like it would allow for some headway to be made against widespread frivolous postings.

 

[Shane Adams]

If we're going by ratios, I'll probably be banned then. Lately there's been squat that's interested me weather-wise, so almost all of my posting has been in the bar and grill section. I think the deal is, we're a large community, and some people are bound to be bored, annoyed, or uninterested in others' posts. My advice is just deal with it.

Let's be honest...Nick Grillo has been posting on this thread about members who are posting "dramatically" yet he himself sits atop the top 5 in posts on StormTrack. He managed to get another half dozen in on this thread alone, a thread about not posting so much useless stuff. I don't care, but this is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black, which is what this entire thread seems to be "boiling" down to IMO.

Post whatever you want, I don't care. But don't post about other people posting too much.

 

[Gabe Garfield]

Originally posted by Sam Sagnella
rdewey wrote:
I agree with Michael Gribble. Would it be possible to put the ratio's up, or have some sort of rating system? I'd have no problem with that.


I agree - this seems like it would allow for some headway to be made against widespread frivolous postings.

I hate to say it, but I think that's a really bad idea. It smacks of elitism.

As far as the mods decision is concerned, I wholeheartedly agree. I've been a member of ST for quite a while now, and somehow, only managed to post ~350 times. It's not that I don't read the forum; on the contrary, I read it quite often. It's just that, I don't feel the need to chime in on every single topic that pops up that is even remotely interesting. I suppose, to some degree, that it is a matter of time. But then again, there is some stuff that just plain doesn't interest me.

Quality vs quantity, you ask?

Who cares?



Gabe