As a regular foo poster I feel discriminated against.
Why does a "I see it, too" in the Google Search Forum count and our most valuable discussions down in Foo do not? It's not like foo posts are without value, the discussion about harddrives in copy machines even made it to the main page of webmasterworld.
I kind of agree on this. The adsense forum is 70% fluff such as "mine's way down too" and "no probs here", yet the foo forum has some very good in depth discussions. You're saying, literally, "it doesn't count". Well if it doesn't count, get rid of it. :-)
Why do people care what their post count is? This isn't a competition, there are no rewards other then having your membership status change occasionally. Even that maxes out once you hit a certain post number.
@travelin cat - I guess people assess other's knowledge by the count of their posts. 5 posts - newbie, treat their reply with a reserve. 5000 posts - expert, pray to their advice. Spammers often post a lot to accumulate few hundred post to seem as "verified" members before they start to spam the newbies. I catch myself looking at people's post numbers, too.
What about go further and show unmber of posts in the category of the post? Example: In google forum my posts would be accompanied with my total posts and posts in google forum numbers. That might make the post count somehow useful, maybe..
Early on, I was a bit miffed that Foo posts weren't "counted." But as I spent more time on WW, I realized that Foo is not really the core of WW, but more of a playground. Yes, some of the things are actually relevant professionally and posted in Foo because they don't really fit in anywhere else. But that's pretty rare. Most of them are more like Fluff than Foo. And I am certainly guilty of those posts as well. :)
Should all of my "contributions" to the Friday Word Game be counted towards my "seniority" status? I don't really think so.
Yet I also agree with the issue that "me too" or "I agree" or "bump" posts on other forums DO count.
But I also agree that in the end, whether someone has 500 counted posts or 600 counted posts doesn't make a big different to me.
So my vote is in the column to continue not counting Foo posts.
All of this goes toward credibility.Having said that, I'm going to reverse myself and agree that foo should not be counted.
When I look at the current discussions in foo I don't think we need to be ashamed down there or do not have any credibilty. Next to the more important foo topics like whiskers and offroad wheelchairs there are also many discussions about the so called "serious" world. Just look at the current topics now: There is also one about: "Apple facing an anti trust inquiry" "new type of phishing attack", "copy machines are security risk", "IBM distributes virus-laden USB keys", "U.S. FTC Shut Down net firm", "Adobe open later over flash and apple", "Rise in search engine Spam", German court rule about Wifi...
At least nobody whining that his Adsense cheque got lost in the mail, or that his Adwords account was shut down because he advertised fake Viagra and he has sent Google an email and promised to be a good boy in the future but they do not respond.
Or at least we should have a sperate foo count, so if someone from the other forums accidently stumbles into foo we can judge if he has enough foo credibilty and how to value his opinon about the important foo topics like whiskers and lawmans new ride.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who consider the number of posts and those who don't.
I'm with travelen cat, but I also know from my work elsewhere that post counts are a big deal for some people. (One forum I works with years ago made a big deal out of it, urging people to get their ranks up, etc. And, to my surprise, it worked.)