|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Sept 30, 2009 3:06:04 GMT -5
This has been suggested but I'd like to ask again... post quality on this forum has been degrading and I think this forums should be better than all those spam infested forums (excluding the spam board) and we should aim for higher post quality no t quantity... here is what I have to say:
Post Quality As a general rule (give or take), try and keep your posts to at least 10 words. If you are going to "quote to agree", you MUST add something to the topic, not just quote. "lol", "ha", "*facepalm*" ect are spam posts. Add something to your post. Also, when creating new topics, think to yourself, will this create discussion? If not, you probably shouldn't post it.
Please discuss as I think this would be very useful... saying just plain "yes" as a post does nothing but agree.... what did you really add to the topic... 1 word stating what you are agreeing with, no reason why, no discussion... just a plain yes... That is not putting any effort into posting at all...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 30, 2009 11:54:54 GMT -5
Memzak, it didn't work last time you proposed this. The ten-word limit isn't gonna happen. Plenty of meaningful posts have less than ten words. I bet half your posts have under ten words. Sometimes, a plain "yes" is all that is required. Suppose we were taking a vote on something. Also, with the topic thing... not all topics need to be discussed. Why would there be a "lock on post" feature if we weren't allowed to post topics that probably won't be discussed? Restricting the formation of new topics would just be cutting down on the useful info in the forums. Imagine if M4's calculator was never invented, because nobody posted any logic topics, because they thought they wouldn't cause much discussion? It is impossible to tell whether or not something will be discussed beforehand, and we don't need perfectly good topics not being posted. Besides, posting quality looks fine from here.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Sept 30, 2009 15:07:33 GMT -5
I stand by my prior arguments. Length is intentional.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 30, 2009 15:25:01 GMT -5
That post had under ten words. So does this.
|
|
KuraiOorora
Supreme Member
{S=39}[M:575]
Grand Mist Samurai
Posts: 322
|
Post by KuraiOorora on Sept 30, 2009 15:57:15 GMT -5
Perhaps not a minimum word count, but things such as a single word post can be taken as spam anyways, so why are we even re-discussing this idea if we decided not to go along with it.....
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Sept 30, 2009 19:58:38 GMT -5
As a matter of fact, I completely disagree with this. I think a rule dictating a minimum number of words--any number--would be useless. Here's why.
Suppose some people are having a conversation, and a new person jumps in without anything meaningful to say. For example, under normal circumstances, they would say something like:
"I agree."
Obviously, that post is worthless and not constructive at all. But suppose there was a 10-word rule. The person could easily say the same thing, but just drag it out, and they wouldn't be breaking the rules. For example, they could say:
"I agree, Shadow. That's a great idea! We should really do that!"
As you can see, that post is just as worthless as the first one, but technically, the person wouldn't be doing anything wrong.
Plus, as Qwerty said, a lot a meaningful posts can be less than 10 words. Does that mean even a post like that would be breaking the rules??? Where would we draw the line between allowed and not allowed??? Is there a gray area???
This kind of thing would be extremely complicated, and it wouldn't achieve the goal it set out to achieve. So a minimum word rule wouldn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Sept 30, 2009 22:04:29 GMT -5
We've already turned the idea down in the past. I move we lock this thread symbolically and let it die, and/or trash it.
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 1, 2009 1:44:57 GMT -5
(First Post)
(TSL)
(First Post) And that scenario goes completely with the rule in the first post.... it isn't a specific limit... it varies...
(TSL)
Yes there is, read the top of this post and the top of this page...
[offtopic]For some reason I seem to get the feeling that you don't even read my posts and just the first line or so... or just read what you want to read...[/offtopic]
Guys I am not Hitler saying it MUST be 10 words NO less or ELSE!
I am saying that depending on the situation you can clearly see if some one just extended out spam to fit the limit like TSL stated and you can also go a bit under the limit... There is a grey area...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 1, 2009 8:49:18 GMT -5
Look, we don't agree So far, nobody agrees except you. I still move we lock this thread.
There isn't really any point in putting spam in little boxes (or tins). Anyway, ALL of those would cut down on posting, especially the topic limit. People can't tell whether or not a topic will be a hit. They should probably post that topic anyway, unless there is a specific rule against it (eg, in wrong section, or a powder game element request).
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 1, 2009 12:19:17 GMT -5
But what more reasons do you have for not agreeing...
the post above your post says everything defending and well most of it was already in the original rule in the first post.... so none of your arguments really have a point...
also.... if you want short little, "lolz" "wibble" "yea" "XD" and "I agree" take it to the chat, seriously that is why it is there....
it wouldn't stop my posting... or any other staff... as they all seem to be doing pretty well except for the fact that many of us don't have the time to post a lot.... many of the top posters just don't post any more... Sandmaster used to post on EVERY topic he hasn't posted on (unless it is a bump) I even remember when M4 posted a lot too, so did TSL last year... and arch.... and if I recall all of those posts weren't pointless spam and actually added the the topic. People can post fine without this rule... I've seen it with my own eyes MANY times on this forum before.... it shouldn't be ANY problem at all to most of the people on this forums.... Only people who want quick posts and DB's and add nothing to the conversation but their mindless babble...
Wow, you guys are a tough crowd...
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Oct 1, 2009 13:49:55 GMT -5
I don't agree....
Memzak, you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist. Although many posts on this forum are under 10 words, it isn't doing anybody harm. Most of them do have meaning, not all posts need to be in-depth.
It'll be a bugger for the staff to moderate aswell....
This idea has already been rejected before, how would it work this time?
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Oct 1, 2009 14:38:37 GMT -5
Well, just because an idea was rejected doesn't mean that it won't work...
You say that there could be give and take, but the entire purpose of a rule is to specify a certain condition and apply some action, such as IF (post_topic <> thread_topic) THEN kill_poster. With your proposed idea, responses such as "Try reloading the page..." would not be considered good enough (it has less than half of your general requirement, which to some people would be considered short enough to be classified as spam) and would get the poster in trouble, despite helping someone who had troubles trying to see changes to the forum that were made while the person temporarily lost internet connection. An oddly specific example, I know...
If you are more concerned about how well something contributes to a topic, specify that as a rule instead of the number limit with an indeterminate tolerance.
The rule could be "A post must actively contribute to the discussion within its thread. Posts that add no extra significance to the thread, such as laughing out loud or agreeing to/rejecting a previous argument without giving reasoning, will be in violation of this rule."
With that kind of a rule in place, we could punish all of the "lololololololol"s and "indeed"s without worrying about problems such as helpful posts with only two words. As for quoting someone else, we shouldn't have to worry about whether someone adds an explanation to it if the quote clearly and explicitly points out something missed by the previous poster.
If quality is the problem, attack it: quantity has nothing to do with quality.
|
|
KuraiOorora
Supreme Member
{S=39}[M:575]
Grand Mist Samurai
Posts: 322
|
Post by KuraiOorora on Oct 1, 2009 15:25:34 GMT -5
Either way, Memzak your idea has become invalid. IF in the course a moderator finds a post, regardless of word count, that is in no relation to the topic, that is when one acts. A single word sentence such as 'I agree' is relating to the topic as said poster contributed to their opinion on the matter. Perhaps not in the most descriptive way, but enough to give their thoughts out.
I second Qwertyuiop's motion to lock this topic or move it to the trash bin.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Oct 1, 2009 20:35:48 GMT -5
For some reason I seem to get the feeling that you don't even read my posts and just the first line or so... or just read what you want to read... I'm really sorry about that, Memzak. I went back and read the whole first paragraph of your first post, and I noticed this: and we should aim for higher post quality no t quantity... Here's what I have to say. In my opinion, targeting the quality as opposed to quantity wouldn't work very well either. Quality is very subjective. What one person thinks is good quality, another person might think would be bad quality. It would just make a lot of unnecessary disagreements. And as TDM said, the supposed low-quality posts aren't doing any harm because there are barely any of them. It's not like it's a big problem at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 2, 2009 14:51:27 GMT -5
okay... from all of this I see that my rule makes some sense... but I proposed it in the wrong way.... as well as a few errors....
A 10 letter limit that can be gone over or under gives too much opinion and so some staff members will consider it violation while others think it is in complete harmony with the rule.
New and reworked one done after a lot of thought.... (just really copied from GV - Thanks BTW)
"A post must actively contribute to the discussion within its thread. Posts that add no extra significance to the thread, such as laughing out loud or agreeing to/rejecting a previous argument without giving reasoning, will be in violation of this rule."
this seems to incorporate everyones ideas... (and it is okay TSL, everyone does it everyone once in a while)
I can clearly see why GV is Co-Owner....
[slightly off topic] Where are most of the top posters anyways? [/slightly off topic]
sorry about all the fuss... I was just trying to make something to stop them indeeds, olololol, yes, and other spam-like posts but they always used the excuse of "talking about the topic and not something completely irrelevant so it is not spam" excuse...
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Oct 2, 2009 14:59:01 GMT -5
Alright, that seems good (says the author of the proposal...), so I presume we argue about that rule instead. It looks like we can either accept it and put it into the rules, reject it outright, or table it so that it doesn't get accepted until spammy posts become a grave problem.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 2, 2009 15:07:49 GMT -5
Seems good, but I still think people should be allowed to vote in a poll or state their opinion without having to go into an in-depth discussion about why they agree/disagree.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Oct 2, 2009 17:47:21 GMT -5
A post must actively contribute to the discussion within its thread. Posts that add no extra significance to the thread, such as laughing out loud or agreeing to/rejecting a previous argument without giving reasoning, will be in violation of this rule. I agree. However, as Qwerty said, polls should be an exception
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 3, 2009 18:22:17 GMT -5
Such as every single thread in the "Respect" board.
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Oct 3, 2009 18:42:13 GMT -5
Exactly.
So... everyone agree on this?
|
|