Post counts

[Simon C]

Hi Ron,

I've been posting to these boards for a little while now, and run the full arc from "this is dumb" through "I don't understand why things are done this way" and on to "ah, now I get it!" For almost the entirety of this forum.  First I was put off by the closing of the Theory forum, becasue I though it implied a belief that theory issues were "solved".  Now I realise that you've just moved to what you feel is a more productive way of discussing theory.  I was cranky about how "First Thoughts" seemed to prohibit discussing more complete games, until I realised that it was a way of encouraging - or demanding - playtesting.

But there's one thing I still don't get.  What is the reason for the forum to make "post count" visible?　I understand that this is common practice in almost all other forums, but why should it be the case here? It seems antithetical to the "design goals" of the forum.  Is it just that you hadn't thought to disable the feature?

I guess I'm against post counts becasue they lead to judging the merit of someone's words based on how much they say, and to some extent how long they've been posting on the boards, rather than on the basis of what the person actually says.  I think that post count often becomes a kind of defacto authority, which is possibly not what you want to promote here.  Emphatically, post counts create a hierarchy of users.  Hierarchies have many effects, some of which are positive, but I feel (particularly as a new poster) that the negative effects are worth considering.  Hierarchies maintain the status quo.  Hierarchies encourage self-censorship of new ideas.  Hierarchies value "who" over "what". 

On the other hand, I can see these issues being less significant here than in other forums.  There's less empty posting, and no "off topic" threads, so post count is a more accurate measure of actual contribution to discussion.  Also, to some extent the Forge requires a sort of "expertise".  There are interpretations of the concepts used here that are less useful than others, and you might not want to have new users, who might misapply these ideas, mistaken for "experts".

So, I guess I'm asking the question "how do visible post counts fulfill the design goals of this forum?" This isn't a demand that you change, so much an attempt to understand.

Cheers,

Simon

[Eero Tuovinen]

I don't want to get between you and Ron, but as I've seen this same sentiment before, I'm curious: could you throw us an anecdote about how post count affects hierarchy? I know that I only use post count to check if a person is completely new to the forums, so I can start with the usual welcomes or not. Aside from that I'd find it ridiculous to defer to somebody based on post count - rather, it's all about achievement and substance. I could name several posters with over thousand posts whose stuff I routinely skip when reading, simply because I find them boring. I couldn't tell you my own post count (specifically because it's not visible in the composing window), either; it was around 500 the last time I remember, so maybe it's around 700 now? No idea.

[greyorm]

So, I guess I'm asking the question "how do visible post counts fulfill the design goals of this forum?" This isn't a demand that you change, so much an attempt to understand.

Keep in mind it may also be a case of "Clinton hasn't gotten around to removing that feature yet", given that post counts are a standard feature of most board software. And it may not even be that high up on the list of changes to the forum.

[Simon C]

I'm curious: could you throw us an anecdote about how post count affects hierarchy?

I think that, for a lot of people, high post count = authoritative.  In a lot of forums, people with a high count are accorded a lot of respect, and deferred to as the "authorities" of the forum.  This is certainly the case on forums like rpg.net, where the regular posters have an almost celebrity status.  I know I have a habit of checking the post count of a poster who says something I find unusual, as a way of "validating" their comments.  It's a bad habit though. As you point out, it's ridiculous here to assume that it has any correlation to authority.  That's why I'm curious about why they're included in this forum, following the ethos (so successfully applied to role playing games) that any rule should fulfill some kind of design goal.

Keep in mind it may also be a case of "Clinton hasn't gotten around to removing that feature yet,"

I'd considered that, and I totally understand.  I don't think they're so amazingly damaging as to require being removed immediately.  I guess I mostly just wondered if they'd considered removing them.

[David Artman]

RE why: I don't know either, and I too have the (bad?) habit of using post count to assess experience level with theory and such. I disregard it for actual play, design ideas, settings, etc--stuff where it's more about innovation than being on-pace with current thinking on specific subjects.

RE fixing SMF to hide it:
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=39067.msg%25msg_id%25

It looks like you'd have to modify one line in three files (for each theme--only one, here).
HTH;
David

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

A quick response during my narrow window of internet access from overseas (of my usual habitat) - I have always disliked the post count feature and see no reason for it. However, it's not my call, and it's especially not my effort involved to change it. Remember, every bright idea of yours is hours of work and agony for Clinton, which is one reason why he has full authority over such things. So although I'd like to give a longer and more detailed answer, please bear with me until I'm home (a few days to go) and then Clinton and I can discuss the chances of changing it, or any number of other things.

Best, Ron

[M. J. Young]

I don't think the post count is entirely without value.

I had been involved in a lot of the theory discussions when they were back at Gaming Outpost, but resisted moving over here because it seemed like it was going to be a lot more time out of my week. When I got here, there were people I knew from before, but people I did not know. Post counts enabled me to sort out, to some degree, who had been heavily involved in discussions here and probably knew something of what they were saying from those who either had only recently arrived or (since registration date is available) were only minimally involved.

It's not a matter of "seniority" or "authority" in the sense we usually give those words, but really of both in a more fundamental sense. If someone with over thousand posts answers a question, particularly if it's related to the theories or terminology or practices here on the site, it's rather likely that that person has been in discussions of that subject before and has a good idea about the answer. That's not to say that someone with fewer than a hundred posts won't have the right answer, but I would put more confidence in the answer given by the one with more posts, at least until I reached the point where I knew what people by name were reliable on what kinds of questions.

I also don't think it impacts me except when I'm wondering whether a poster knows what he's talking about. That is, I don't look to see that this person has posted five hundred times, and then read the post--I read the post, and then if it sounds like they're making odd claims about what people think and say here more generally and I don't know who they are, I look to see how long they've been here and how involved they've been. If they're relatively new I usually suspect they've misunderstood something, but there are people here who have posted over five hundred times whose names have not yet registered in my brain, and that level of involvement suggests they probably know some things I do not.

--M. J. Young

[Valamir]

I agree with MJ completely on the above

Plus even more useful to me is in framing responses to questions.  If I'm responding to someone with a couple of hundred posts under their belt, I'm going to assume a higher level of knowledge / familiarity with the Forge than someone with 2 posts.

I see no reason for them to go away

[Ron Edwards]

Ha! I knew we'd discussed this at some point in the past ...

My comments regarding the Indie Design forum from 2003. The thread is about something else, then I jacked it all by myself to be about post counts. Clinton and I talked about it some more after that, and figured that since it wasn't obviously causing some kind of real problem, that we'd continue to do nothing. The fact that I don't like them doesn't mean they're causing trouble.

Best, Ron

[Simon C]

Thanks for adressing this Ron, don't sweat it.