I've been on these forums for a while, and I have noticed a problem with the current post count system. I have seen people with large post counts, but that have a very low amount of reputation and post really shitty posts. You can get a massive post count by posting something like "that sux" or "kool" on every post you see, and thus gain the respect of the community because of your large post count. But you will have a very low amount of reputation because nobody approves your posts.
So that is why I think that reputation should show on forums post, instead or with post count. Thus, we would have a far more reliable way to see if a forum member is a devoted contributing member, or an idiot who doesn't know how to post.
Thanks for reading!
I completely agree with that statement, I have seen people have like over 1000 posts but every one of them are just little comments that nobody even takes a second to think about or reply, also, they should have a way to prevent people from being offensive or insulting other peeps, because when I come on here and ask a question and I really need help, most of the answers say that I am retarded and ask if I was dropped on my head when I was little... who agrees?
Post count it useless and Rep count is useless. "Respect" for a poster shouldn't be based on those two rather useless statistics but rather on the quality of posts made.
Yes, we should judge on the quality of the post you are reading.
Bad idea. There will be some crazy members that will thumb absolutely everybody down, just so that they will have a higher number. They can also use it to target one member.
That is true. Some are too fanatic about their reputation. Turning others' reputation down at will; that idea would just mess the statistics around. it would be unfair for a lot of people.
...Why do you care how good of a poster someone is? You judge their post based on the post that you're reading, not who they are. Therefore any previous record doesn't matter...
I think post count and reputation are little indications. But we should all have a decent judgement and read a little about what the user post in the present and in the past (if you really want to know his/her reputation).
To conclude, I think the system is fine like that. Judge with what you are reading and verify earlier posts if you wish to know more about someone.
Rep can be just as easily misread as post counts can.
Venit, quessit, induravit.
I completely agree with that statement, I have seen people have like over 1000 posts but every one of them are just little comments that nobody even takes a second to think about or reply, also, they should have a way to prevent people from being offensive or insulting other peeps, because when I come on here and ask a question and I really need help, most of the answers say that I am retarded and ask if I was dropped on my head when I was little... who agrees?
Yes, we should judge on the quality of the post you are reading.
That is true. Some are too fanatic about their reputation. Turning others' reputation down at will; that idea would just mess the statistics around. it would be unfair for a lot of people.
I think post count and reputation are little indications. But we should all have a decent judgement and read a little about what the user post in the present and in the past (if you really want to know his/her reputation).
To conclude, I think the system is fine like that. Judge with what you are reading and verify earlier posts if you wish to know more about someone.
I don't support.