POLL: Move post count to profiles only?


Removing post count from posts  

549 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we display post count only in profiles

    • Yes
      229
    • No
      220
    • I don't care either way
      100


Recommended Posts

I would like it to be there.. it shows members dedication to the forum when surfing

Why? How does it show/indicate dedication, what nonsense! Post count on this site is blown out of all proportion as far as I am concerned!

A vast majority of people here, with massive post counts, are nothing short of spammers whose posts are largely meaningless! We had a guy here who in every post used to say things like: ?Nice wall? ?Nice one? ?I?ll use that? etc etc!! I think he got up to 5000 posts or so in about 6 months! People who insert a ?+1? or such meaningless nonsense. I could go on and on!

I've never been on a forum that disabled them, doing so is semi-pointless. Besides, sometimes there is good use for it.

If you're looking at post counts as a measurment anyway, you do need a life. We all can't be Rappy or Growled.

Do people really base their judgments of other people on their post count?

Every forum I've ever been on had sort of an "earn your stripes" period first 100 posts or so to prove yourself. I rarely see needless post-whoring aside from Comic Book Guy and Audioboxer :whistle:

Yes.

Because I've been on this site for years, read the forums daily, but only contribute when I think there is a need for my voice to be heard. That doesn't make me any less important than a member with ten times my posts.

Yes.

Because I've been on this site for years, read the forums daily, but only contribute when I think there is a need for my voice to be heard. That doesn't make me any less important than a member with ten times my posts.

Who said it does?

I'm for this idea - apart from maybe "First time posters" so it's easier to identify and report spammers. To me, it's seemed in the past that some users have thought they were more valuable to the community because of post count - making post count just a stat as opposed to 'part of the post' is a great idea, I think.

So far there isn't an overwhelming vote for or against!

I think you are 100% right to keep post counts in posts unless there is an overwhelming vote against. And I don't think, judging by what has been seen so far, that there will be such a vote.

I think the reasons behind removing them are a bit weak.

I have never, ever seen any valid posts that has been turned down or discredited purely because of their post-count - Yes, the "1-post wonders" are dodgy at times and it's also a nice indicator to watch out for this member, just for the first few posts. Else I just see the post count a bit like the Gamescore on Xbox Live - Doesn't do anything but it's fun to track and see it go up. I honestly can't see why it should be removed, never seen any negatives sides of it so far and removing it would just seem like change just for the sake of change.

I'm in agreement with Sethos, I've rarely seen "post count discrimination" - typically speaking, if a "low post count" person's post actually holds credibility we're smart enough folk to realise that it has such.

Forums are for discussion. Do post counts improve the discussion? No.

It's just an e-penis for most. It's not like there's some outrageous need for it to be taken away... but it doesn't REALLY serve any useful purpose. The people who want to be known on the forums are most likely already known well enough. Surely they won't lose their 'cool' status by having post counts hidden... assuming posting heavily makes you cool in these waters.

Then again, as many have said - the post quality would presumably increase if this was removed.

It's like facebook - what's the point of having 1,000 friends if you've never met most of them?

I agree with James7's post.

If you are removing post count in posts, why not also remove the date when we joined, along with our member's number? Since I joined the forums, I haven't really seen a case where people would give importance to another member's post count, except, of course, for when a milestone is reached. Only a misguided person would think that a higher post count exalts a person's importance.

To be honest, I see the 'Joined' and 'Member No.' portions as being more useless than the post count is. In my opinion, post count only represents contribution. Anyways, if anything, remove all three. :rolleyes: Of course, you must leave the stars... Yeah, they are cool. :laugh:

Edited by CrownedClown03
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • add $200 and get DWARF 3 model add $2000 and visit scientists center in your town add $20000 and visit the biggest telescope in Chile
    • Guess it's one of those things best used by devs to thoroughly test stuff.
    • is it all upside down there? traffic lights reverted too?
    • Bluesky COO warns social media regulations could destroy competition from small startups by Paul Hill Fears that increasing government control of social media risks regulatory capture by the biggest social media firms were raised again recently. Bluesky’s chief operating officer said in an interview that social media bans for children and tighter regulations for social media firms risk creating a world where there are only a few social media platforms run by companies with the deepest pockets. Regulations on social media firms have been very lax since they appeared for mainstream users in the 2000’s. This gave Meta, Snapchat, and Google time to build up their user bases and get entrenched, with Meta being the most successful. Now that Meta has succeeded, it has been attempting regulatory capture. By pushing for more regulations of social media, Meta hopes to make it more difficult for rivals to challenge it. For its part, it doesn’t need to worry about the cost of regulation because it has a lot of money to spend, whereas startups do not. Speaking to CNBC, Rose Wang, Bluesky’s chief operating officer, said: “I support the protection and the safety of youth, the question that we have then is at what cost, because essentially what I’m scared of is in the long term, we’re headed to a world where there’s about three to five platforms, and extreme heavy regulation of those platforms, and basically the whole compliance teams of these platforms are 10 times the size of our entire team. So, basically, we’re living in a world where it’s almost impossible for smaller entrants to come in and build healthier spaces. These platforms have led to a place where the bottom line is the thing that drives what they do... so I understand why governments have to step in and regulate, because the platforms have done nothing right.” She said that while she is not against regulation, there needs to be more channels between the small to mid-sized players and regulators to help protect them. She says that big tech players, on the other hand, “who we know are circumventing regulation,” need to be regulated. Essentially, the Bluesky position is one of nuance, rather than absolutes. While Bluesky’s proposal may preserve competition in the social media space, it still doesn’t address the massive privacy implications these age verification measures introduce, such as handing over sensitive identity documents to access age-gated content. Source: CNBC
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      249
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      71
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      70
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!