reply to post by SkepticOverlord
Possible to have a "thumbs up" button for at least showing the OP some sort of support in their statements even though you may not have anything in
particular to add to their thread? I think it's nice not to be left out in left field with the crickets, don't you?
I don't, however, feel it would be good to have a "thumbs down" button for that purpose. It would be abused just for the sake of it.
New Minimum Character Count For Replies., page 14
reply posted on 13-4-2009 @ 01:47 AM by pstrron
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
This in fact is the crux of the matter. The vast majority do desire this and I for one get tired of the "one line drivel" that adds nothing to the discussion. So once again Admin finds themselves between the proverbial rock and a hard place. To limit or not to limit that is the question and the answer is....both and neither. My point being is that I see the need and yet the need is not exactly being met buy having a min 'character Count'. SO's avatar sums it up nicely without saying a word.
ATS is a one of a kind and can be quite refreshing. However, let us not over tax the quality posters at the excuse of policing the trivial.
Several have suggested "Self policing by members", this unfortunately will only lead to abuse by some the same way the black spaces are abused for one liners. In a similar way minimum character Count promotes bloated postings. Both defeat the intent and purpose.
Frankly, I see this measure as an interim gap until a better system of filtering can be put in place. Instead of being offended by it, let us rather work together with SO to try and find a "true" working solution that we and the ATS community can benefit from.
We have always desired posts of substance, and often remind our members of this and bring it up again when it becomes a problem and have even included this text about the reply form: "Please do not create minimal posts or simple "I agree" posts when replying to threads."
This in fact is the crux of the matter. The vast majority do desire this and I for one get tired of the "one line drivel" that adds nothing to the discussion. So once again Admin finds themselves between the proverbial rock and a hard place. To limit or not to limit that is the question and the answer is....both and neither. My point being is that I see the need and yet the need is not exactly being met buy having a min 'character Count'. SO's avatar sums it up nicely without saying a word.
ATS is a one of a kind and can be quite refreshing. However, let us not over tax the quality posters at the excuse of policing the trivial.
Several have suggested "Self policing by members", this unfortunately will only lead to abuse by some the same way the black spaces are abused for one liners. In a similar way minimum character Count promotes bloated postings. Both defeat the intent and purpose.
Frankly, I see this measure as an interim gap until a better system of filtering can be put in place. Instead of being offended by it, let us rather work together with SO to try and find a "true" working solution that we and the ATS community can benefit from.
(I have never figured that one out to this day). reply posted on 13-4-2009 @ 02:56 AM by Rockpuck
reply to post by Retseh
Most sites operate on number of unique hits a day/month/hr whatever.. I would imagine (though I cannot say for certain at all) that ATS makes most of it's revenue from non-members sifting through the site. Clicking on Addsense whatnot.. number of members + unique visitors I am sure drives the cost of advertising up as well though, but I doubt posts.
Most sites operate on number of unique hits a day/month/hr whatever.. I would imagine (though I cannot say for certain at all) that ATS makes most of it's revenue from non-members sifting through the site. Clicking on Addsense whatnot.. number of members + unique visitors I am sure drives the cost of advertising up as well though, but I doubt posts.
reply posted on 13-4-2009 @ 06:30 AM by chissler
reply to post by PuterMan
The reference to "older" members was likely one of tenure and not physical age. Someone who has been here for many years as opposed to someone who has been here for months would be labeled an "older" member.
But I'd also disagree with the statement that members who have been here for a longer period of time are likely going to be put off by this. If anything, I would have thought that this group of members would be the ones to not even blink an eye at this.
The reference to "older" members was likely one of tenure and not physical age. Someone who has been here for many years as opposed to someone who has been here for months would be labeled an "older" member.
But I'd also disagree with the statement that members who have been here for a longer period of time are likely going to be put off by this. If anything, I would have thought that this group of members would be the ones to not even blink an eye at this.
reply posted on 13-4-2009 @ 06:37 AM by The Lass
reply to post by PuterMan
Doesn't Hikix mean those who have been registered on ATS for a while rather than the crinklies ? Or "coffin dodgers" as my nephew so elegantly put it.
I'm 72 y/o and could give some of you a run for your money
This new change doesn't fuss me too much. In some ways it's an advantage. As you get older you realise that things can seldom be seen in entirely black & white terms. The shades of grey require discussion, debate. If anything this change helps me, although I still consider that it's not a change necessarily required on BTS.
Doesn't Hikix mean those who have been registered on ATS for a while rather than the crinklies ? Or "coffin dodgers" as my nephew so elegantly put it.
I'm 72 y/o and could give some of you a run for your money
This new change doesn't fuss me too much. In some ways it's an advantage. As you get older you realise that things can seldom be seen in entirely black & white terms. The shades of grey require discussion, debate. If anything this change helps me, although I still consider that it's not a change necessarily required on BTS.
reply posted on 13-4-2009 @ 07:05 AM by Esoterica
Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
Possible to have a "thumbs up" button for at least showing the OP some sort of support in their statements even though you may not have anything in particular to add to their thread? I think it's nice not to be left out in left field with the crickets, don't you?
I don't, however, feel it would be good to have a "thumbs down" button for that purpose. It would be abused just for the sake of it.
That's what Star and Flag are for. Although I tend to use flags for topics I think are important, even if the OP isn't anything special. It'll hopefully attract someone more knowledgeable. But telling someone that they made a good post is exactly what stars are for. Sure they're anonymous, but this is the internet. You can always send a u2u if you think somebody did a truly excellent job.
reply posted on 13-4-2009 @ 07:33 AM by PuterMan
reply to post by The Lass
You, and the mods, are probably correct that it refers to tenure and not physical age - a point that I had considered and stated in my original reply.
In a way it illustrates the exact point, that there should indeed be a minimum as it encourages people to state clearly their point and avoid ambiguity. Brevity does not necessarily equate to succinctness, despite the meaning of the word succinct, any more than verbosity equates to relevance.
You, and the mods, are probably correct that it refers to tenure and not physical age - a point that I had considered and stated in my original reply.
In a way it illustrates the exact point, that there should indeed be a minimum as it encourages people to state clearly their point and avoid ambiguity. Brevity does not necessarily equate to succinctness, despite the meaning of the word succinct, any more than verbosity equates to relevance.
