| 1:53 pm on Feb 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
HEHE, that means i will have 5 more posts (All from foo :), don't want to guess Lawman's though )
Look forward to it.
Also if i understand it correct, all the posts in the moderator forum will also be counted?
(Hehe, can see Brett's post number reaching 20k very fast!)
| 2:10 pm on Feb 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I might actually top 1000!
I'm curious as to why the inclusion of all Posts - is it just a function of the way rebuild code worked out?
| 2:27 pm on Feb 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Interesting move Brett - do you foresee a change in the membership status milestones accompanying this change?
| 2:30 pm on Feb 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>and avg bytes per post on member profiles.
Remember to take a look at Paynt's profile after this change!
| 3:27 pm on Feb 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, the big winner is mivox...
>I'm curious as to why the inclusion of all Posts
One time free giveaway. Just the way it worked out in the code.
|troels nybo nielsen|
| 9:17 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>and avg bytes per post on member profiles.
I find that quite fair. There are quite a few members who have many long posts. I have been thinking that they really ought to be credited for that. My own average must be one of the lowest.
Not sure, but I _think_ that I was a "senior" member for a couple of days. Has that step been changed?
| 9:23 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I seem to remember it being 400+ for seniorship, looks like the thresholds have gone up in advance of the change Brett?
| 10:19 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Well, the big winner is mivox... |
hehehee... and to think I was the little wallflower who never spoke in high school. Oops... there's another one, hehehe.
I thnk paynt wins the avg. byte counts per individual post though... doesn't she? Her posts are always longer and much more substantive than mine. I just talk alot.
| 10:39 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I hope the average bytes figure doesn't include quoted text - otherwise we may see a trend toward posts full of lengthy quotes :)
| 10:47 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Since lessening the load on the system is one of the main reasons for this change I have my doubts that Brett will add code to parse out the quotes before doing the byte count.
>>avg. byte counts per individual post
P.S. This is an investment into my future post count and, since I added this useless little sentence here, into my future average byte count per individual post/thread/message/thingy [wink] this is slightly longer than just ;) [wink] [wink] [happy]
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve...
| 10:49 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm fighting the temptation to quote Andreas' entire post here to boost my byte count ;)
But seriously, I am sure you are right, Andreas.
| 10:55 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Must make 1000 posts .....
| 10:56 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Must make 1000 posts .....
| 10:57 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Must make 1000 posts (darn that flood prevention, it makes me actually type something, but of course, one can never be made to produce something of substance ;) ;) ;)
Is 15 seconds up yet!?
| 10:59 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Several of you guys are assuming that a high average byte count is the high status thing to aim for. Brett didn't say that.
Maybe low will be sexy.
Or perhaps there'll be a prize for anyone who's average is exactly 2512 on Christmas day.
| 11:02 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Why on earth do we worry about Post Counts :o
| 11:17 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Somebody here seems to assume that Brett defines what is considered sexy around here. Well he does not. Itīs the community that does. And since quite a lot in our society is based on growth not sustainability the bigger the better is some subconscious pattern that will always rear its head no matter how often you will say:
Bigger isnít better
Taller isnít braver
Stronger isnít always wise
Smaller isnít necessary lesser
Guts can come in any size
|troels nybo nielsen|
| 11:45 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Less is more... unless less is less
| 11:52 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>fighting the temptation to quote Andreas' entire post here to boost my byte count
hehe... That's exactly how it's done! I've seen it - watched it being done on many occasions over time. How it works is a person goes down a whole long thread, pulls out long quotes from a bunch of people and gives a very brief comment on each, like "great post, whatsyername". Great big byte count for the post, nothing actually contributed by the person - it's all quotes from other people.
There are a couple other ways to do it too, I've seen it done many times. I've never thought about it quite that way but yeah, this is a day to take note of. We've uncovered a whole new way of board spamming - spambytes. ;)
[edited by: Marcia at 11:54 pm (utc) on Feb. 25, 2003]
| 11:54 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
But more is always more. :)
| 12:01 am on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hehehe - Mivox ...more words than me, see you all just think I talk a lot... and what about Marcia, I'm thinking her count is going through the roof.
I was working on my goal to my 1000 post. Now I'll never know how long it would have taken me.
Does this mean I don't get a party?
|troels nybo nielsen|
| 12:02 am on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'll never dare quote anyone anymore.. not even my humble self.
I sometimes think Marcia sees more than is good for her... or for us. <duck>
| 9:36 am on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Brett: an idea -- don't show a post count and a byte average.
Instead show a single integer (0 to 10) called PostRank.
Devise an algorithm for setting PostRank based on (say) number of posts
average post size
threadweighting (earlier posts carry more weight)
forum weighting (Foo and Google are low weight)
text density (reward or punish html codes)
URL density (ditto for quoting URLs)
time of day
user name (does Googleguy get a boost or not?)
average posts this full moon
etc etc -- including moderator applied penalties
Do not reveal the algorithm to anyone. Change it regularly.
Start a forum where people can ask "But I posted 25 times last full moon and I dropped from 6 to 5. Why!?"
| 9:56 am on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think there should be a penalty over and above certain bytes.
Keep it short and snappy.
Brett had a thread around somewhere on "threadrank".
| 1:53 pm on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Why on earth do we worry about Post Count |
OK I'll boost the byte count by quoting myself ;)
But it is a serious point.
Why does post count matter?
Who bothers with it?
Is it a plot to get more posts out of us?
Volunteer directories have, I suspect, for a long time, tapped into the human vanity/desire for seniority/call it what you like, to get "more" out of volunteer editors.
Can it be that "administration" is working on ways to get us to post more, and hence move WebmasterWorld to the next goal of reaching top 500 in Alexa? ;)
| 2:19 pm on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone seen a change yet?
| 2:22 pm on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Nice try, Marcia ;)
| 4:06 pm on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I wonder with some members and what numbers they will be hitting, i think Rc will easily hit the 10k and become "RC" status :)
| 4:19 pm on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Exactly - I'm not so sure a big byte count is desireable. I've seen both ends of the spectrum, and I think the most enjoyable posters generally fall somewhere right in the middle of the byte counts. Too many, and it is too wordy and people don't read that message - too few and you are seen as a frivolous poster to be ignored.
| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 (  2 ) > > |