Post Problems Here!!! - Page 7

Borat · 02-25-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiver

So says the guy who didn't have many..

True. I only had 400 something posts. But I believe in quality not quantity. Just start doing what you post count junkies do best and drop a bunch of single-smilie replies or the forum favorite "QFT" as a reply. You'll be back to 10,000 posts in no time.

GB12 · 02-25-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borat Sagdiyev

True. I only had 400 something posts. But I believe in quality not quantity. Just start doing what you post count junkies do best and drop a bunch of single-smilie replies or the forum favorite "QFT" as a reply. You'll be back to 10,000 posts in no time.

There were several with high post counts that had quality responses, and Shiver was one of them. I agree with some of the others that just dropping everyone to 0 might be best.

Tubby · 02-25-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

There were several with high post counts that had quality responses, and Shiver was one of them. I agree with some of the others that just dropping everyone to 0 might be best.

QFT:) 10 characters

KCJ58 · 02-25-2007, 08:18 PM

yep 10 characters

Shiver · 02-25-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

There were several with high post counts that had quality responses, and Shiver was one of them. I agree with some of the others that just dropping everyone to 0 might be best.

I personally don't care. However; to characterize all of the people with high post count as people who don't post substantially is moronic. I could see why some would mind.

Tubby · 02-25-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

There were several with high post counts that had quality responses, and Shiver was one of them. I agree with some of the others that just dropping everyone to 0 might be best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiver

I personally don't care. However; to characterize all of the people with high post count as people who don't post substantially is moronic. I could see why some would mind.

DG and Toonster each had the highest amount of posts, and theyre both quality posters who are greatly respected. I think that GB's conclusion isnt very well thought-out.

Shiver · 02-25-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCJ58

yep 10 characters

Quoted for truth...

Abbreviations are the machinations of the devil, that's why.

Shiver · 02-25-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubby

DG and Toonster each had the highest amount of posts, and theyre both quality posters who are greatly respected. I think that GB's conclusion isnt very well thought-out.

It wasn't GB, it was some random 49ers fan.

GB12 · 02-25-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tubby

DG and Toonster each had the highest amount of posts, and theyre both quality posters who are greatly respected. I think that GB's conclusion isnt very well thought-out.

What are you talking about? That's what I was saying.

Tubby · 02-25-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

What are you talking about? That's what I was saying.

And by GB I meant some random niners fan

Xiomera · 02-25-2007, 08:30 PM

Is it possible to adjust the font size on these forums? I wish I didn't have to scroll so much. I liked the old forums because more fit on a page.

M.O.T.H. · 02-25-2007, 08:32 PM

Maybe a stupid question. How do we know how many people are online?

Xiomera · 02-25-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.O.T.H.

Maybe a stupid question. How do we know how many people are online?

Look at the bottom of the main forum page.

GB12 · 02-25-2007, 08:33 PM

Bottom of the Index

Currently Active Users: 306 (203 members and 103 guests)

M.O.T.H. · 02-25-2007, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

Bottom of the Index

Currently Active Users: 306 (203 members and 103 guests)

Yeah I didnt even see that before.

bearsfan_51 · 02-25-2007, 08:36 PM

It's not the # of posts that means a big deal, I just don't like the idea of starting over in that regard. People like myself and Xio have been here since the beginning when there were 10-15 people. I'm proud of that fact in a silly sort of way.

GB12 · 02-25-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

Bottom of the Index

Currently Active Users: 306 (203 members and 103 guests)

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.O.T.H.

Yeah I didnt even see that before.

That can't be right though. I don't even know who half of them are.

4pAc · 02-25-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

It's not the # of posts that means a big deal, I just don't like the idea of starting over in that regard. People like myself and Xio have been here since the beginning when there were 10-15 people. I'm proud of that fact in a silly sort of way.

You can still look over at joined date.

bearsfan_51 · 02-25-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4pAc

You can still look over at joined date.

There are numerous people that have technically been a member a long time but have contributed nothing.

Pit Bull #53 · 02-25-2007, 08:40 PM

One thing I like is that you can edit the number of posts you want to see per page. First thing I did was set it to the maximum amount.

Xiomera · 02-25-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4pAc

You can still look over at joined date.

There needs to be some sort of ranking. Post count isn't what's important. It's a combination of a lot of things. Quality of posts (reputation on these boards), Joined Date, Total Number of Posts, Forum Involvement . . .

Some sort of system can probably be devised. It's not the number of posts that the longtime vets are concerned with, its the reputation. People understood that you generally knew what you were talking about based off your post count (with few exceptions).

elway777 · 02-25-2007, 08:43 PM

Well how do you all like my "______ is a better and more productive poster than you" rep?

4pAc · 02-25-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xiomera

There needs to be some sort of ranking. Post count isn't what's important. It's a combination of a lot of things. Quality of posts (reputation on these boards), Joined Date, Total Number of Posts, Forum Involvement . . .

Some sort of system can probably be devised. It's not the number of posts that the longtime vets are concerned with, its the reputation. People understood that you generally knew what you were talking about based off your post count (with few exceptions).

Well, users who have been here for longer than a couple of months pretty much know which posters contribute. I am sure their rep points will go up if they continue to make quality posts.

Xiomera · 02-25-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4pAc

Well, users who have been here for longer than a couple of months pretty much know which posters contribute. I am sure their rep points will go up if they continue to make quality posts.

The people who most the most from this point on are the one's that will get the rep points though. It's all gonna be based off what people do now, rather than in the past months and years (2+ for me) past.

rainman · 02-25-2007, 08:52 PM

I'm not a fan of these new boards much, but if they are more reliable it's worth it.