sonsofwashington Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 What is the main goal here? In so many words, eliminate the meaningless back and fourth banter created by quick replies that suggest very little. At the moment this web site cannot differentiate between a meaningful post and meaningless banter. Not an easy thing for a heartless, bloodless, web site to do, but I think that increasing the character count is just a thoughtless solution to complex problem (100 character limit is not going to stop anyone from posting whatever they want). Setting the minimum character count to 100 is not the most effective solution (i am not implying that an effective solution is trivial). Consider that I could be a member who enters 5000 characters in one post everyday for a year (or whatever is considered a great contributor to the site). Should I be barred from placing a smiley in a post every once in a while. Well, I think not, but that is debatable. So how do you determine what is good post and what is bad post. Tough question. Even if you could distinguish between a desireable and undesireable post to some degree, it may not be perfect and that may, at some point, directly affect every member of the community. Could get a lot of emails from the community in a short matter of time. The general solution here is to define what type of posts the community is trying to eliminate, apply that definition to the post itself and flag it, then associate those posts with the member who created them. Then contact that member and suggest that he must make an attempt to produce more quantity in his post (quantity instead of quality becuase quality can really only be measured by the community and not the web server--if you find a way to program the server to measure quality please let me know ..). Post flagging can be done a few time throughout the day on the servers own time. Contacting the momeber would be done the next time he logs in or even via email. Undesireable posts could be defined as the following. - short posts (includes smiles), created in a small period of time. - short posts, created over a long period of time, with no long posts in between. - etc.....i dont have any more time, but i could be persuaded to brainsorm if you PM me. your idea ia just as good as mine. that may not be saying much....lol. Of course you will also have to implement something because members will always try to fool the system. In the begining this should really only be used a method to aid the moderators (i.e. whatever slips through the cracks.) In short what I said suggests that a static character count is not the way to go. Algorithms that measure post quality (or flagging bad posts) based on certain factors is really a smarter way to go about it. Of course the latter is more complicated. Changing the character count....piece of cake. Well a well implemented system just might save this board, or at least bring it back to what it used to be......even before i was a member. The type of board i only use to hear about. cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Or just make a VIP room for board vets. Access by invitation only. Nothing wrong with that. You have the public sector and you have the private sector. Is that legal? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvan1 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Or just make a VIP room for board vets. Access by invitation only. Nothing wrong with that. You have the public sector and you have the private sector. Is that legal? lol i could kinda see that... but the problem is, all the good talks would be in the vip room, and new people would get discouraged when the public sectors conversation has filtered to nothing but brunell threads and what not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBChick Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Personally, I didn't vote, but I'm in the boat of instead of 100, trying out 20 or 30, to see if it weeds out some. Though I don't think a minimum of 100 would bother me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Some of the best jokes are only a few words. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 i could kinda see that... but the problem is, all the good talks would be in the vip room, and new people would get discouraged when the public sectors conversation has filtered to nothing but brunell threads and what not. They can still see the threads in the VIP. They just can't post or reply. Maybe it will give them something to aspire to. Maybe they will take some of that to the public forums. If I owned the board I would certainly make sure I had my own table to sit at with the people I wanted to be with while still providing unlimited tables for others...but that is just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 We are obviously not bumping to 100 given the results here. We might bump it to 15 and see what happens. Then maybe 20. Generally the consensus here is there's a lot of merit in some threads that are made entirely of short, witty, sharp responses. I can't say as I disagree. Some of the ideas about letting the thread starter control character count to a degree, or only having it on new threads are items we'll look into but probably aren't possible. We do appreciate the feedback as it is why we put this stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 I think there are times for small short posts, and making them obselete just would take away from the boards. Yeah there are upsides to it, but not enough in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rook Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 I have not voted yet because my choice is not up there. I suggest that responses less than 100 characters do not count to your post amount. It would be up to each one of us to use the honor system to not circumvent the count. This works well for a couple of reasons - the fast, short, witty retort is not stopped AND more thoughtful responses are rewarded. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 If you can allow the computer to determine what is a good post and what is a bad post, i think you have your problem solved. How easy is that? Well, certainly it is a project that will evolve and get better as time goes on.....like search engines.....along came google and now the world collides with information complete differently than it did when msn and yahoo were the top dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fight_on_til_you_have_won Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 I voted no, because it only encourages long-winded replies. Hell, I bet my reply is less than 100 characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalDefense Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I would have voted yes if it was a little less, say 40-50 characters 100 is too much IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofer Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I originally voted "Yes", but after reading some of the posts and excellent arguments against, I would like to change my vote to "No". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Don't take away the flippant shots Art...I mean thats the only entertaining thing on the Political discussions on the Tailgate.....cept for a few posts where I actually learn something and plagiarize it for my own discussion with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCRoughrider Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I can't believe anyone would want to this. Forcing people to make posts of 100 characters when they only have a short comment is begging for a lot of non-sense in posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I originally voted "Yes", but after reading some of the posts and excellent arguments against, I would like to change my vote to "No". I was going to say 'too late'. Instead, I'll say 'too late because you already staked out your position and even though you've reconsidered its not fair to others to alter your vote in mid-thread since if we allowed that who's to say you wouldn't turn right around and change it again and if everyone did that this whole voting thing would be a mess wouldn't you agree?'. I rest my case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I originally voted "Yes", but after reading some of the posts and excellent arguments against, I would like to change my vote to "No". I just voted No for you Woofer. You owe me. Some of the best posts I have seen were very short. Almost all of the ones that make me laugh were short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Well the Word Association, Song Name, and threads such as those would certainly take a dive. Also during the season a lot of our favorite threads merit short supplies: karma threads, game threads, and Blondie's pre-game threads. for reasons stated ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ i vote no. i like the direction that the staff is headed, i.e. trying to improve the quality of the board, especially the stadium. i was all for the new group, and i like this idea, in some aspects. however, imo, there are too many well-established traditions around here that would take a serious hit. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I have not voted yet because my choice is not up there. I suggest that responses less than 100 characters do not count to your post amount. It would be up to each one of us to use the honor system to not circumvent the count. This works well for a couple of reasons - the fast, short, witty retort is not stopped AND more thoughtful responses are rewarded. :2cents: 100 characters does not = thoughtful. less than 100 does not = worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_good_brotha Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I agree with the minimum character count. Although there should be some exceptions. Ex.- If someone makes a post you feel is funny, I think it would be okay to post just the "laughing" smily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I was going to say 'too late'.Instead, I'll say 'too late because you already staked out your position and even though you've reconsidered its not fair to others to alter your vote in mid-thread since if we allowed that who's to say you wouldn't turn right around and change it again and if everyone did that this whole voting thing would be a mess wouldn't you agree?'. I rest my case see what happens when you're forced to post 100 character minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Somebody questioned about the statement, "merge thread" which is clearly less than 100 characters. But this is such a common response that it probably deserves its own button. There should be a button at the bottom of the page for us to click on, kinda like a vote saying that we vote for this thread to be merged. just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 ...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. Right now, there's someone wondering if they can report this as part of a "call-out" post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Somebody questioned about the statement, "merge thread" which is clearly less than 100 characters. But this is such a common response that it probably deserves its own button. There should be a button at the bottom of the page for us to click on, kinda like a vote saying that we vote for this thread to be merged. just my .02 There is such a button. It's in the top right hand corner of each post & looks like this : You may know it as the Report button. Simply include the link to the original thread for them to be merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 see what happens when you're forced to post 100 character minimum. Uhhh....hey bubba....pssst.....that was the whole point of that nonsense paragraph...... I think the consensus is clearly sometimes less is more. Hey TK, someone finally said it ...size DOESN'T matter!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.