More community feedback -- Character count for posting.

[mrchslmnky]

I am going to have nightmares over that picture.

[MisterPinstripe]

I am going to have nightmares over that picture.

lol... Tell me about it. That picture cracked me up.

[skinfan133]

if you do up the post requirments, how are we supposed to do our quick response games in tailgate????? ill be vary sad and frustrated when in the never ending story game or in the band game we have to post an extra 90 characters in addition to one name:2cents:

i have an idea though, why not mae it an option for the thread starter to control the character limit, kind of like poll responses are controled only by the thread starter, what would you guys think of that?

[Guest santana4prez]

Great Idea Art it will make people put a little more thought into their posts.:applause:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

here's the thing that concerns me the most... some of the best conversations and discussion i have had here are ones in which both of us are online and replying quickly and efficiently back to each other on a thread while others chime in or simply read on to what we are saying. by allowing each individual post to be short, it carries the tone of a real conversation in which both people are engaged, as opposed to these dissertations which no one wants to read when two, three, four people are going back and forth.

i see the reason for upping the count, but for the reasons stated above, i'd leave it as is

[NewCliche21]

I love the concept, but I think it may be too much. If you look at most of the threads supporting the idea, they're almost all UNDER 100 characters. Especially for funny people on the board, as a quick retort is so much better than a few sentences. And if something is funny, then I think I'd ruin it by writing a hundered characters on WHY said joke was funny instead of just appreciating jokes by the laughing smiley. I think maybe there should be a daily cap on <100 word character posts or something like that. I mean, to be really honest, sometimes with some people on this board, especially Cowboy fans, all you really need to say is:

:doh:

[SackMachine]

No, because such people would be asked to leave .

You are right though, there ARE times quick, short reply is perfect.

That was 97 characters

I think its a bad idea, sometimes ,as almost everyone as already stated, all you need is a small reply.

Short and sweet is sometimes the way to go. Small replies don't really matter, they take a shorter time to read anyways so IF they don't have any value you don't waste much time.

[Romberjo]

I'd support the "thread starter can mandate > 100 protocol" if that's technologically feasible.

And put me strongly in the camp of those who very much appreciate the mods trying to come up with some way to foster more thoughtful responses, and otherwise increasing the signal to noise ratio.

[Dallsux]

Although the idea sounds good alot of the fun threads of posting pictures would be lost such as the "Why we will beat _______" threads, the player lookalike threads, and the infamous Eli Manning thread. If there's a way the thread starter could allow less of a minimum word count for certain threads they started or maybe the mods could have authority on lessening it for those threads then it could work. Would signatures count as part of it? Otherwise people could just put a 100 characters into their signature and we're back to square one.

Is there a way to make the character count an option, like "show signature"? Something you can click on & off as the thread starter?

[Dallsux]

That was 97 characters

I think its a bad idea, sometimes ,as almost everyone as already stated, all you need is a small reply.

Short and sweet is sometimes the way to go. Small replies don't really matter, they take a shorter time to read anyways so IF they don't have any value you don't waste much time.

Actually, if you go back & count again, it's 122 characters. The smilie counts as 5 & don't forget the spaces.

[mikeyf316]

There are times when I just want to thank somebody for posting a good article. Validation for their efforts. I know I don't make a hundred characters on those types of posts. For that reason alone, I voted no. I think that you've put forth a good concept, but the wrong execution to reach it. Unfortunately, I don't have another solution to offer at this time.

[RedskinsFanInTX]

no

[bubba9497]

I think this is a wonderful idea. The point of the message boards is to create discussion, and that is hard to do when a post has 40 replies, only ten of which are more then "good post", "no way", or "What were you thinking?". By upping the required character count it would keep it so that there was more actual debate and less snide comments. A thread would mean more then the authors initial comment and a buch of yay's or neigh's following it. It would make the boards much more enjoyable.

seriously, does skimming over some short comment really take away from a thread?

Short responses have their place... as stated before sometimes a few words convey a message better than any long thought out essay. Sometimes the point of the thread is simply wanting to see if people support your idea. adding a higher character limit would severely limit many people from sharing their yay or nay.

Lets be honest here, threads that warrant longer thought out posts to debate will get them. Trying to force them will in my opinion actually backfire. Many good threads will drop quickly for lack of support, many posters will just go back to lurking simply because it is more convenient than worrying about having enough characters in the post. Nothing is more irritating than posting something and get some error message (like in game day threads when you are posting too fast). It is going to curtail much of the spontaneity, and humor of many threads... and may slowly turn the board into one of those snotty anal boards with nothing but pseudo intellectual geeks acting superior sucking the life out of the board atmosphere.

[TheREALJBird]

Damn, well put Bubba

[Dallsux]

seriously, does skimming over some short comment really take away from a thread?

Short response have there place... as stated before sometimes a few words convey a message better than any long thought out essay. Sometimes the point of the thread is simply wanting to see if people support your idea. adding a higher character limit would severely limit many people from sharing their yay or nay.

Lets be honest here, threads that warrant longer thought out posts to debate will get them. Trying to force them will in my opinion actually backfire. Many good threads will drop quickly for lack of support, many posters will just go back to lurking simply because it is more convenient than worrying about having enough characters in the post. Nothing is more irritating than posting something and get some error message (like in game day threads when you are posting too fast). It is going to curtail much of the spontaneity, and humor of many threads... and may slowly turn the board into one of those snotty anal boards with nothing but pseudo intellectual geeks acting superior sucking the life out of the board atmosphere.

:applause: What he said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (just in case we're already at 100 CPP)

[Kosher Ham]

I wouldnt mind either way.

I understand the reasoning behind it, I understand those opposed that want to enjoy certain threads, I understand people that enjoy the quick witty one liners, however I also understand that certain posters come on here and simply post smileys, or a BS statement that just makes the thread even longer.

As far as game threads, IMO. They are terrible. A chat feature would be 10x better without having to read 70 pages or so (and my settings are at 40 posts/40 threads).

Get a chat feature, thats where its at.

[bubba9497]

BTW one of the greatest threads in the past couple years the "it's Brunell's fault" would never have happened with a character limit because 99% of the posts where just short funny responses.

it would also kill "why we will beat....." threads, the show your support post count threads, those spontaneous silly threads that take a life of their own. To me these type threads are just as important to the overall experience of the board as any long well thought out debate threads.

[21KO]

...may slowly turn the board into one of those snotty anal boards with nothing but pseudo intellectual geeks acting superior sucking the life out of the board atmosphere.

*cough*TAILGATE*cough*

jk

mostly

[The Animal Trainer]

Bad Idea....wait, gotta make it at least 10 characters.

There's my point, if you're still reading this, you are wasting your time. My message could be conveyed in my first 2 words, but now here you are, reading and reading and reading, when really I had nothing more to say than those 1st two words. So now I'll just keep going on and on, not really saying anything but trying to make my post sound more intelligent by adding words so that it seems longer, and more thought out, maybe better researched. But my original two words really made my point...the past minute you've spent reading this is a minute you will never be able to get back. Pretty sad actually. Wish I could have just posted, "Bad Idea"...I bet you do too.

[DCthomahal]

For my part, I voted no.

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but what I would LOVE to see is very simply a "view all" link by the page navigation numbers.

I can scroll VERY quickly past any number of smiley faces and one word repartees as I keep track of the surrounding "serious" arguments (of how stupid a coach with a couple decades experience in football was for doing something or how big a nimrod a player is even though none of the posters could do his job better than him, etc.) IF -- IF I do not have to open innumerable pages to try to keep track of the whole thing.

Yes, the 200 page posts on gameday might get unwieldy even for broadband... but it would simply be an option that could be used to have everything spread out before you all at the same time (making the annoying bits much easier to "blurb" over).

I have set my preferences to the 40 posts per page and there may be some technical difficulties with providing this option (or a 250 post per page option or something like that) that I haven't got a clue about, but it seems like there are an awful lot of web sites with this type of choice available. And I think the reason is that this is the best way to deal with even huge amounts of info with high superfluous content --to lay it all out in front of people and let them whisk past the stuff that doesn't interest them. I bet there would be those that would skip all the WORDY posts (like this one) and just light on the quick hits with the sexy avatars and pictures.

Oh well, that's one partial solution that would make the postings a world more navigable and enjoyable for me. Just my :2cents:

[Dead Money]

I against removing the quick reply window.

I'm for increasing the character count (if need be)

But, I think 25-40 or 60 would suffice, 100 is prolly too much.

I understand what your doing, but feel that this place is going to have rules for the rules soon.

Also would this apply to every forum? Because IMO it would reduce the fun in the tailgate significantly if not completely. Sorry if answered I dont have time to read the whole thread.

:2cents:

[autograph]

I vote no also.

How about to just open a thread? :logo:

[Thinking Skins]

Why not leave this option to the person starting the thread?

If he wants it to be a thread that really discusses some concepts, then he can check the checkbox to enforce this rule.

But if its just one of the "We will beat Philly" threads, they should have the option not to enforce the rule.

Just add an extra alert prompt or checkbox on the 'New Thread' screen.

[Thinking Skins]

Bubba asked "seriously, does skimming over some short comment really take away from a thread?"

Not of its just one little response. But it gets more and more annoying as the number of these short responses on a single thread grows.

[carlsbadd]

I say no, sometimes a one or two word answer works fine