# A (fresh?) idea regarding post counts



## bsnelson (Oct 30, 1999)

There's been a lot of discussion about post counts here in the past. It's clearly a big issue on both sides of the fence. Some see them as a source of pride, some see them as "proof" of someone's (or their own) "too much time on their hands" situation. Others use them to gauge (for better or worse) the degree that posters have participated, and perhaps a higher post count lends more "weight" to a poster's comments. 

I've thought of a solution that I haven't seen posted elsewhere, and it seems to me that it would be a good compromise for almost all parties. How about removing the post counts from the threads themselves, but leaving them in the users' public profile? In other words, they don't display in the threads, but if you click on a user's name (or otherwise view their public profile), the post count would still be there. 

It seems that this would allow those who are ashamed that their post counts are too low (or too high, we have several of those  ) to "tuck them away", yet those who want to have a look can do so easily. 

Comments?

Brad


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I think they're fine as is.

If any changes have to be made, I'd suggest it becomes something of a rolling last-12-months post count; that'll still give people an idea of how active any given user is at a glance, but even the playing field a bit so newbies might not feel so inadequate around the big numbers. 

But mostly I think those complaining about them (repeatedly) oughta be banned for a day or two now and then.


----------



## eksimba (Nov 18, 2002)

Well, look at that! I'm only about 32,000 or so posts behind Doug. I better get to work...


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Maybe in addition to post counts the system could display the number of times a user has been banned or warned by a moderator.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Seriously, what's the BFD? I don't even notice them anymore, and people that do obviously have WAY too much free time.


----------



## bsnelson (Oct 30, 1999)

Neenahboy said:


> Seriously, what's the BFD? I don't even notice them anymore, and people that do obviously have WAY too much free time.


I tend to agree, but it is a big deal to some. Hence my suggestion. 

Brad


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Sorry, really not going to make changes to the site like that. I am sorry, but I really find it kind of silly.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Neenahboy said:


> Seriously, what's the BFD? I don't even notice them anymore, and people that do obviously have WAY too much free time.





David Bott said:


> Sorry, really not going to make changes to the site like that. I am sorry, but I really find it kind of silly.


Really no need to apologize, David. I agree, what's the big deal?


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

bsnelson said:


> I've thought of a solution that I haven't seen posted elsewhere, and it seems to me that it would be a good compromise for almost all parties.
> 
> ...
> 
> Comments?


Of course the question is moot now that David's dismissed it as silly, but since you asked for comments...

Given your preface, I think an interesting compromise for a site of this size, might be to allow each user to choose for themselves. IE: Display their own post count by default, but make the ability to "hide" theirs a per-user preference. That would introduce quite a few server queries though, so maybe allowing the visitors to turn them all off or on (like we can with signatures) would be the next best thing.

I do agree, for the most part, that it's not worth changing here though. It's already ingrained in the TCF DNA and is a quick barometer for user "history."

Besides, anyone bothered by seeing their _own_ post count has other problems to worry about, quite frankly. The problem shouldn't be about protecting folks from their own insecurities, IMO. The forum's goal should be to encourage intelligent discourse, so folks wouldn't focus so much on something as silly as those numbers by the username.

What bothers me more about postcount is that it's become a catch-all for complaints; just because someone posts a "+1" doesn't mean they've posted merely to "pad their post count." It could simply mean they agreed with the previous poster, and wanted to add to the chorus, but didn't have the initiative or interest to add clarifying words. If the "+1" posts are a bother, then institute a minimum characters restriction. But don't dismiss the poster as just "padding." I'd venture to guess that's rarely the case, and again, places undue attention on postcount... which has nothing to do with an individual's worth, intelligence, or potential for contribution to the forum.


----------



## eksimba (Nov 18, 2002)

Fofer said:


> What bothers me more about postcount is that it's become a catch-all for complaints; just because someone posts a "+1" doesn't mean they've posted merely to "pad their post count." It could simply mean they agreed with the previous poster, and wanted to add to the chorus, but didn't have the initiative or interest to add clarifying words. If the "+1" posts are a bother, then institute a minimum characters restriction. But don't dismiss the poster as just "padding." I'd venture to guess that's rarely the case, and again, places undue attention on postcount... which has nothing to do with an individual's worth, intelligence, or potential for contribution to the forum.


+1


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Saw that one comin' a mile away.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Fofer said:


> Saw that one comin' a mile away.


+1


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Thanks all.


----------

