A thought about post counts. Options

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

In my short experience as a CreateBlog community member, I have realized post statistics do play a significant role in the user's experience since they grant access to extra features and are a requisite (that can be bypassed in exceptional occasions) to apply for staff membership. This is the not the first place where I have seen this system being used, and thusly it is not the first time I pass this thought to the community to consider. Without further ado, I'll proceed to explain my position about this subject.

In my opinion, post quotas only manage to make users work enough to meet them in order to enjoy the benefits they get for reaching the 50, 100, etc.., post mark. Such acting is not necessarily linked to making users involved in improving the community, but rather in seeking personal goals that may or may not transcend (positive or negatively) onto the rest of users.

That is mainly because apart from the site's general rules, there's not a standard establishing how a person should fill the demanded rate. Since it's pretty easy to maintain a high PPD ratio without adding anything that contributes to the site in general while avoiding the violation of any general rule, the point of having a posts limit becomes kind of moot, in the end.

Lastly, keeping a post count policy seems to have stemmed an underlying rivalry between users based upon the number of posts when it comes to, for example, hiring sessions. Despite knowing it's not a must-meet requirement, people seem to focus first on their PPD then on evaluating whether their skills can be of any help to Createblog or not. And that is pretty counterproductive to the purpose of selecting people willing to sacrifice time and efforts for an online community.

[*mona lisa*]

Ahh, yes. I believe this has been mentioned before here. You may want to read it if you're looking for some of the community members' opinions.

Getting rid of the post count altogether would be great in the long run (and I mean very long run) for createBlog. The problem then becomes: how do we go about doing business where post count is important? E.g. Post count and PPD are two requirements needed to become an Official Member. How would contributing members be given benefits? (Not trying to argue with you here, just voicing concerns.) The whole idea behind the cB would have to be thought over, not that that is a bad thing, just... complicated.

Personally, I think gaining a higher post count was a goal for some people before. Now, not so much. At least, I don't think that mentality is as common as it used to be.

To be honest, the post count and PPD are no longer heavily assessed during hiring sessions. It just lets us know that a member has been actively posting. The more important factors are consistent activity, attitude, strong personality and such.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

Mona, can you make them invisible? Like warnings, where only mods and the person can see it.

And I agree, having a high post count is consdierably less of a big deal now than it used to be. I remember being really excited when I hit 1000, and now it's just like whoa, how did that happen?

[*mona lisa*]

You mean the post count and PPD? Not sure if that's possible. It may be that the IPB software doesn't support disabling such things. That might also be a hassle if a member wants to know what his/her post count/PPD is. :x I can ask Ju-Sun when he gets back.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

Wait no, that's what I meant. The member could see their own, as well as mods or whatever, but it wouldn't be generally public. That's how warnings are, no? I can see mine, but as a mod, I could see everyone's. I'm not entirely sure I like the idea of disabling them completely, but so long as they still exist...

[*mona lisa*]

Ohhh! Sorry about that. Not sure how much effect that will have but I'll ask Ju-sun if it's possible, at the least.

[*Libertie*]

I'd rather remove the post count from the mini profile which appears next to every post than get rid of the display altogether. For example, if you click a person's name to view their profile you can still see the number of posts along with their ppd.

However, I don't think removing the post count is the issue Jordi's trying to bring up. This goes more along with this topic, as this is what got us started talking in the first place. The topic Anna started talks about having a minimum post count requirement in order to request a layout. I see the basic idea behind this, but after giving it some thought (which I would never have done if not for having this discussion with Jordi) I realize how silly the idea actually is.

In any case, there is no way to stop people from posting around the forums, getting their 50 posts, getting their layout, and then never coming back again. And to be honest, who cares? CB is here to offer free resources, and if a designer wants to make a layout for someone, knowing that they probably won't be grateful enough to continue posting as an active member, that's the designer's prerogative. It should be the designer's decision as to whether or not he/she wants to take on the task of completing a request. If it bothers them, they don't have to do it, right? Most designers, or at least this applies to me, would go into a request thread, and if the person has been an active member or if they recognize the username, they'll agree to do it. Otherwise, they choose to ignore the topic altogether. For this reason, I don't see why we can't get rid of that little rule that says you have to have 50 posts in order to request a layout. I do realize that it was my rant with Anna which brought up the discussion in the other thread, but upon giving the issue some thought, it's my fault that I agreed to make a Livejournal layout for a guy, knowing from the very beginning that his sole intention was to make it to 50 posts and then stop coming to the forums altogether.

That having been said, I like the requirements we have set in place for Official Members. It's kind of a fun thing to work for that adds something rather unique to the forums. The Official Member title shows dedication and an interest in the forums, and why wouldn't a potential staff member want to work hard for that title? However, if a person doesn't make 200 quality posts in order to acquire Official Member status, to me they haven't earned it. This is another point made in Jordi's post - he pointed out that reaching a post count milestone is a pointless goal if you can get there quickly and easily by making a ton of useless, one-line posts. In my opinion, that's why the post count requirement was raised to 200 from 50 - fifty quality posts are harder to acquire than 200 spam posts.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Danielle pretty much covered what I was trying to say in my opening post, however I'll clarify my position further as it seems it will make debating this subject easier and more effective. Thank you for taking your time to read and reply =) .

My concern wasn't directed towards the idea of having a generic post count; defining that concept as user X has made Y number of posts since it first joined up. I understand that figure as a statistic that can offer an idea of how active user X has been, but that is purely orientating unless the numeric value is compared with the contents of the post history.

That kind of post count is not cause of any problems by itself unless when not being contemplated properly and even then the consequences are pretty inoffensive, therefore that's why I left it apart from my original message.

My intention is to debate whether it is a good idea or not to make users reach up to a certain quantity of posts in order to "earn" access to advanced features. That may motivate people to be active in the community, but it doesn't ensure that the activity registered does contribute to the improvement of CB in any way.

I understand how they can stop a certain type of fly-by-night users, and I am well aware that being "helpful to the community" is a rather abstract concept upon which we could debate endlessly; but have in mind that 50 totally random and inane posts in the Sandbox do earn you the right to request a Layout. The same goes for awarding users with advanced features once they hit 200 posts, although to a much lesser degree.

Seeing as how there are people that have filled over 7 pages of their Post History in less than 3 days, the posting requirements seem to be more symbolic marks rather than terms that should define quality.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Accepting that a benchmark post count fiure is more of a motivation to produce quantity over quality, how would you suggest we motivate members to produce higher quality posts? Also, I would point out that, with this very concern in mind, posts in the Sandbox and Introductions do not count towards a user's total post count.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Accepting that a benchmark post count fiure is more of a motivation to produce quantity over quality, how would you suggest we motivate members to produce higher quality posts? Also, I would point out that, with this very concern in mind, posts in the Sandbox and Introductions do not count towards a user's total post count.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to motivate users in that sense at all; that's what my experience in online communities has shown me so far, unless the forum were to adopt a set of draconian rules which would turn CB into an iron-fist ruled, enlightened dictatorship of sorts. If that were the case, CB would be more elitist, significally smaller and more than likely less fun overall.

See, everybody has to make 200 posts to get access to an advanced set of features, however it is ultimately a personal choice what those posts are going to end up looking like. One could write 200 amazing posts, 100, or just go through the Interests section and post one-line comments randomly until meeting the desired quota. There's 12 boards in there the rules of which do allow such practice (the Sandbox and Debate would be out of the question).

Controlling the rate at which the user base increases is necessary, since more users equal more money being put into maintaining CreateBlog online. For this reason alone, I don't completely object the idea of having flood control measures. Therefore why I'd like to debate which would be the best option in that sense. Or if there's such thing as a better option than what we have, even.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Granted, different posts are of different vlaue to the community, but if not post count, what do you suggest ought to be the criteria for official membership, etc?

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Granted, different posts are of different vlaue to the community, but if not post count, what do you suggest ought to be the criteria for official membership, etc?

Before joining up, when Dani was telling me about CreateBlog, I imagined the member status would upgrade according to their contributions to the site in the form of Layouts, Scripts, etc... since this community seems more oriented towards the technical aspects of online journals and blogs.

I am well aware this would be a tad bit more restrictive, since for example, people like me would never get Official Membership under those terms, but it would probably be a more meritocratic system (as per CreateBlog's original characteristics as a community) when it comes to award users with extra features.

[*Libertie*]

Well, we do have a separate title for those who gain the same extra features based on their submissions to the site - Official Designer. It's actually how I started out, I met the quota by submitting Livejournal layouts and applied. There's not a difference between the two other than the names, really.

And yes, while this community is driven by providing tools for bloggers, a good deal of the members came for the free layouts and stayed for the community. Many are not designers at all and never even venture into the resource center. For this reason, I feel that official membership should be awarded based on community involvement (posting); however, I also feel that it shouldn't be something that is handed out mechanically the way it is now. I agree with you on the idea that it is very easy to reach 200 posts by simply hopping around to the topics that ask for a one-line response ("What are you listening to?", "What are you eating?", "What are you wearing?", "How are you feeling?", "Anonymous Shoutouts", "Official Confessions") - there are tons of these, and that's just off the top of my head.

While these are all legitimate posts that are not against the rules, the person making the posts isn't doing anything to prove himself as a contributing member of the forums by posting only in these topics. In a way, I think the review process should be a bit personal - doing a quick review of post history and looking for quality rather than quantity. If this were the case (and I'm guessing this is the point Jordi is trying to make), then we wouldn't really have so much need for a post count requirement. However, since this makes a LOT of extra work for our admins, who are the only two people who can accept Official Members, I do have another idea which will allow for a defined set of guidelines while still discouraging the "single day post frenzy" that many new members go on trying to get OM status as soon as possible.

I can possibly see having requirement in which the user must be involved in the community for a certain amount of time (like a month or so) along with the requirement that you maintain a certain ppd to prove that you've been active, just to give the user enough time to get settled into the community. The reason I suggest this is because while yes, this is essentially the same as having a post count quota, it doesn't allow the person to rack up those posts in a day or two and then apply - it more or less encourages them to acquire the posts over that period of time instead.

Also, as a side note, if a user has his or her warning level raised, Official Members status is automatically revoked (the board is set to do this). The member has to reapply after his/her warning level goes back to zero. I thought it might be nice to know that our Official Members at least have to stay out of trouble.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

I was actually being more anarchistic than that, and what has been in the back of my mind all this time is why should there be an Official Membership for posting, when that can take a lot less esffort than designing/scripting/etc... . That being said, I shall proceed to reply to Dani's post.

What makes a post valuable is a tricky matter, hence why I ruled out the idea of evaluating each user's post history before granting any kind of bonus. It'd demand an enormous dedication from the staff members, since each single posts should be taken into consideration depending on the thread and forum board it's been posted. Even having in mind that Createblog is a relatively small community, it would be an herculean task to put that system to work and to keep it rolling. It would simply collapse on itself if there was another staff disbanding.

What Dani said really looks like a good idea. The time requirement altogether with a consistent PPD rate that encourages continuous posting but lis ow enough to not give as much leeway for rushed messages could achieve three interesting objectives:

i) Give more than enough time for the new member to get used to the site's features and community.

ii) Possibly decrease the ammount of Post count-fodder messages. The posting pace could slow down some, but it's seems more feasible to register better posts.

iii) Possibly decrease the number of flight by night users ?

The only disadvantage I can see to having to wait X ammount of time before gaining Official Membership is a potential risk for a status gap to appear between new users and Official Members. However, I don't know the people here that well to give this thought anything more than its own hypothetical value. You people can obviously say more about this matter than I am able to.

I'd like to thank all of you guys, since this is going a lot better than I expected :). The last time I got in a debate of this kind in the other community I belong to a few bans were handed out; thankfully, none of them directed at me. xD;;

PS: Dani, our dinner conversations will be epic long xD.

Anyways >_>;; ...

EDIT: Included a third objectie that I had originally forgot.

[*mona lisa*]

Dani's idea is certainly interesting. I really like the idea of having new members getting used to the community and forums first before gaining the advanced member features, as you call them. It also gives them some time to get used to the rules.Question is, how long before a member is allowed to apply for official-memberdom? I just checked and neither the member profile nor the admincp tells me exactly when a member joined. Only proof of that is the month that is shown in a member profile. :x

I just want to comment on what was mentioned about making the promotion to an Official Member more personal. Not only would it be ridiculous to actually site there counting up to 200 posts (haha, imagine that), but then it comes down to dividing the posts between those that count and those that don't. Should we be that strict on quality of posts?

I'm not sure I completely understand your second objective. I think I do but I want to make sure I understand it completely before responding. Do you mind clarifying that a bit? As for the third objective, I'm not sure how we can decrease the number of users who continually make fly-by-night posts. Posts, perhaps, but not members. It slightly depends on what you mean by fly-by-night posts. Are they the "useless" posts made in such topics as Dani listed or those that don't really contribute to the community? The issue of moving such topics to the Sandbox (which consists of forum games and where posts do not count) but there's always been a division of opinions on that.

Okay, my fingers hurt. :x

[*I Shot JFK*]

Regarding the third objective, why do you want to reduce the number of 'fly-by' posters?

The reason that there ought to be an Official Member status which is not related to design is because there are a large number of members who contribut ehugely solely to the comuntiy forums, in the same way that many designers contribute solely to the design forum...

While a post does take less effort than a layout or even a simple graphic, the vast majority of designers design because they enjoy it, not specifically to achieve a status, in the same way that members of the community forum post because it is what they enjoy, not to achieve a status... i challenge the idea that one type of member is more valuable than another. I personally wouldn't visit createblog at all if it weren't for the community forums (i dont use my myspace anymore, so i have no use for any of the layouts), so it is entirely the posts of community members which define my experience here, and I'm not alone in this respect.

[*Libertie*]

Dani's idea is certainly interesting. I really like the idea of having new members getting used to the community and forums first before gaining the advanced member features, as you call them. It also gives them some time to get used to the rules.Question is, how long before a member is allowed to apply for official-memberdom? I just checked and neither the member profile nor the admincp tells me exactly when a member joined. Only proof of that is the month that is shown in a member profile. :x

I would say the timespan from the user's first post to their most recent one. That seems to be the most accurate way to go about doing it. >.<

I just want to comment on what was mentioned about making the promotion to an Official Member more personal. Not only would it be ridiculous to actually site there counting up to 200 posts (haha, imagine that), but then it comes down to dividing the posts between those that count and those that don't. Should we be that strict on quality of posts?

I did mention that if more emphasis was put on the quality of posts, the actual number of posts wouldn't me quite as important. However, I did also point out how much work that would be for you and Kiera and that having a defined set of guidelines rather than "this is the general idea for who should get promoted to Official Member" would be more appropriate considering the number of applicants we get. My post was actually developed as I went along, so I added that last part as an alternative.

All that having been said, I've always been in favor of having a forum where people can do whatever they want within the PG-13 guidelines. If this is the Sandbox, fine, but the forum games people got REALLY peeved at us when we started moving bad topics from the Lounge into the Sandbox. I'd like to see more feedback on this from the forum games/Sandbox regulars, but I'm still up for the idea of having a spam forum, which obviously does not add to post counts.

PS: And Jordi, anyone who sits through one of these epic long dinner convos will never want to come back to visit.

[*I Shot JFK*]

My concern about a spam forum is the way in which it may distract from the 'real' forums... yea, it may get the spam out of the lounge, but if people spend all their time in there goofing off, then we lose whatever valuable contributions they may have been making in the lounge, as the amount of time they spend there will be reduced

[*mzkandi*]

^ My concerns exactly.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Working on the reply for everybody, sorry for the delay >.<

Question is, how long before a member is allowed to apply for official-memberdom?

Would it bee too complicated to make that data avaiable for the staff members?

It's more than likely already being collected for PPD statistics, I think.

I'm not sure I completely understand your second objective. I think I do but I want to make sure I understand it completely before responding.

Basically, my idea is that having to keep a minimum of activity (set by a PPD vale) during a certain ammount of time (waiting period before gaining Official Membership) could help new users to ponder their actions in CB according to a long term perspective rather than on getting 200 posts alone. Having "time to think" could compel some of the new users to think outside of a "must get X posts" mentality and pay more attention to the boards during their first steps in here.

As for the third objective, I'm not sure how we can decrease the number of users who continually make fly-by-night posts. Posts, perhaps, but not members. It slightly depends on what you mean by fly-by-night posts. Are they the "useless" posts made in such topics as Dani listed or those that don't really contribute to the community? The issue of moving such topics to the Sandbox (which consists of forum games and where posts do not count) but there's always been a division of opinions on that.

Okay, my fingers hurt. :x

The waiting time could have an impact on that, since the requirements for Official membership would be based on time/PPD rate instead of on a static mark. The ratio of users that register into CB would be unaffected, probably. However, the number of these new users that would make rushed posts in order to attain a status could easily decrease, since there would no immediate motivation for getting Official Membership ASAP, (unless they contribute with layouts, etc... ?)

Regarding the third objective, why do you want to reduce the number of 'fly-by' posters?

The term fly-by-night posters applied to Createblog would reffer to people making the maximum number of posts possibly in the lesser time in order to get a benefit. I do doubt such style of posting does have any kind of effect in CB, so in a sense, it's a waste of server space.

I personally wouldn't visit createblog at all if it weren't for the community forums (i dont use my myspace anymore, so i have no use for any of the layouts), so it is entirely the posts of community members which define my experience here, and I'm not alone in this respect.

Agreed; that idea was discarded after Dani's post mentioning "probation" time for new people anyways. Thanks for the feedback, though =) .

- Would you guys like to open a new thread to discuss the creation of a chatterbox forum?

Dani opened an interesting question, but maybe it deserves it's own topic.

[*mona lisa*]

Wait, what data?

The giving-new-members-time-before-becoming-an-official-member is not a bad idea. However, we still would been a lot more feedback on this.

Oh, and there was a threaad made previously about a spam forum.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Wait, what data?

The giving-new-members-time-before-becoming-an-official-member is not a bad idea. However, we still would been a lot more feedback on this.

Oh, and there was a threaad made previously about a spam forum.

The registration date of a CB user.

Isn't that part of the formula that gives out the PPD result?

[*mona lisa*]

The registration date of a CB user.

Isn't that part of the formula that gives out the PPD result?

I'll look more into the admincp about getting the exact registration date. It has to be available somewhere. But since only admins have the ability to promote/demote Official Members/Designers, I don't see why the staff as a whole would need to know. But if it's necessary, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

Yes; the PPD is a average of posts made per day since the day the member has joined.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

I'll look more into the admincp about getting the exact registration date. It has to be available somewhere. But since only admins have the ability to promote/demote Official Members/Designers, I don't see why the staff as a whole would need to know. But if it's necessary, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

Yes; the PPD is a average of posts made per day since the day the member has joined.

Oh, I just said staff in general terms because I don't know what responsabilities belong to each type of staff member >_>;

[*Azarel*]

Also, as a side note, if a user has his or her warning level raised, Official Members status is automatically revoked (the board is set to do this). The member has to reapply after his/her warning level goes back to zero. I thought it might be nice to know that our Official Members at least have to stay out of trouble.

Actually, it's not; the only way any members change status groups is by being manually moved by the admin. In any case, I agree that post count should at least be removed from the miniprofile at the left of every post because a member should not be posting to increase that number but rather to improve the quality of the site. I know that I have long since ceased to pay attention to it, especially because the post count displayed is inaccurate of the actual number of quality posts and threads I've created.

I would say the timespan from the user's first post to their most recent one. That seems to be the most accurate way to go about doing it. >.<

I'd also suggest going about the issue this way, perhaps with staff members helping calculate how long the member has been active. Uhm. Despite reading all the posts in this thread, I'm still not entirely sure where the discussion is so that's all I have to say for now.

[*Libertie*]

Actually, it's not; the only way any members change status groups is by being manually moved by the admin.

Hmm, for some reason I thought that was how it worked. =x Ah well.

Anyway, in short, issues discussed in this topic:

• Should the post count be removed from display?
  So far, we've discussed removing the post count only from the miniprofile next to every post, or removing it from display from the general public, meaning that each individual can see only his own post count. Of course, they would still be displayed for the staff members.
  
  
• Should there be a minimum post count requirement for making a request?
  This hasn't really been covered, but my point of view is that the designer should ultimately make the decision on whether or not to accept a request, so if he or she wants to make a layout/graphic for a user with no posts, that's the designer's prerogative.
  
  
• Is there a problem with our current system for Official Membership requirements?
  It's been discussed that having a minimum post count requirement encourages users to attain Official Membership in as little as 1-2 days by making quick, thoughtless posts. However, since the OM title is a reward for those who are actively a part of the community, the post count does need to play a role. One suggestion that is currently being discussed is the idea that in order to become an Official Member, the user must be a member for a set period of time (one month) and maintain a minimum ppd (assumedly 5). This is a lower post count requirement than the one currently put into place (about 150 compared to 200), but it doesn't allow for a user meeting all the requirements in just a couple of days - rather, it encourages the member to take his time getting acquainted with the community before collecting the posts. The problem is how to go about figuring out how long the user has been a member. Do we figure out the actual join date? I would rather use the timespan from the user's first post to the most recent.

[*mona lisa*]

Yup, it has to be dome manually by admins.

Should there be a minimum post count requirement for making a request?

• This hasn't really been covered, but my point of view is that the designer should ultimately make the decision on whether or not to accept a request, so if he or she wants to make a layout/graphic for a user with no posts, that's the designer's prerogative.

So I now think having the minimum post count to request something isn't beneficial. As it has been mentioned, members often spam in order to meet that requirement. And I agree that if a designer wants to fulfill a request, it's up to him/her to decide if he/she wants to do it for someone without any posts, same as whether or not he/she wants to actually fulfill the request at all.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Yup, it has to be dome manually by admins.

[/list]So I now think having the minimum post count to request something isn't beneficial. As it has been mentioned, members often spam in order to meet that requirement. And I agree that if a designer wants to fulfill a request, it's up to him/her to decide if he/she wants to do it for someone without any posts, same as whether or not he/she wants to actually fulfill the request at all.

Agreed.

My concern with the idea of looking at a member's earliest post in conjunction with their ppd in order to determine official membership is that members who have long periods of inactivity will find it hard to keep up... But i suppose as long as there is provision for 'special cases' as it were, then it's all good

[*Libertie*]

^Right, a person who posts a little at first, doesn't come back for a while, then comes back, posts a lot, and brings up his ppd - that doesn't seem like too much of a problem because at least at that point he's had to wait a month and it doesn't seem like he was posting with the sole intention of meeting the OM requirements.

..or does that even make sense? Remind me not to post when I haven't slept in 34 hours.

[radhikaeatsraman]

I believe we should get rid of the post count requirement altogether, but that staff and other current official members/designers should determine who deserves the title of official member or designer. It shouldn't be something any boob can attain in a matter of days. If a moderator or official member believes that someone deserves to be one, they should PM an admin saying why. The admins, mods and official members should then decide who attains that particular title.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

I believe we should get rid of the post count requirement altogether, but that staff and other current official members/designers should determine who deserves the title of official member or designer. It shouldn't be something any boob can attain in a matter of days. If a moderator or official member believes that someone deserves to be one, they should PM an admin saying why. The admins, mods and official members should then decide who attains that particular title.

Ideally, "peer review" would be the best way to make sure someone deserves Official Membership status; however that could be a very slow process due to the number of people implied in each decision. Also, I don't think this system would produce that many fair nominations having seeng the interactions between members during a hiring session, et al.

I'd preffer a more automated selection process that's less depending on CB users (other than staff members, of course); this far into the discussion, I am quite satisified with giving people probation time to earn O.M. on their own merits.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Yesterday I noticed of another "negative" aspect of having to meet a post requirement in order to maintain Official Membership.

A user that has been an active member for an extended period of time, that does own a significant number of posts and then goes on a hiatus ( its PPD falling under 5) does seem to have a harder time bringing up its post rate than a newer member.

That seems to be a problem with the PPD formula, though. I'll try to find the case that gave me the idea, and I'll update it in this post.

[*Azarel*]

A user that has been an active member for an extended period of time, that does own a significant number of posts and then goes on a hiatus ( its PPD falling under 5) does seem to have a harder time bringing up its post rate than a newer member.

This is true, and some members that go on hiatus create new usernames in order to avoid having to pull up an extremely lacking ppd. However, there have also been members that work to raise up their ppd, in spite of long hiatuses; I myself was one of them, eventually raising my ppd up to a peak of about ten-ish (at least), after a five month hiatus (before I unregistered).

... I forgot my point, and I'll edit it when I remember (hopefully).

[gelionie]

It's true that it's very difficult to bring up your PPD after a hiatus of one month or more, when your PPD originally isn't that high.

It took me half a year to get official member status with two months hiatus in between.

[datass]

What about those people that joined few years ago, and was not active until few months ago? It was hard to get my PPD up even though I've been really active for the past few months just because I joined earlier back and wasn't active.

[gelionie]

^ yea, I agree. It's not fair.

[HakunaMatata]

• Should the post count be removed from display?
  So far, we've discussed removing the post count only from the miniprofile next to every post, or removing it from display from the general public, meaning that each individual can see only his own post count. Of course, they would still be displayed for the staff members.

Having it visible causes pre-judgement, so I'd like to see it removed from view completely except, as you said, to the the individual and staff.

• Should there be a minimum post count requirement for making a request?
  This hasn't really been covered, but my point of view is that the designer should ultimately make the decision on whether or not to accept a request, so if he or she wants to make a layout/graphic for a user with no posts, that's the designer's prerogative.

Mmm, I like the minimum post count, because then at least the requester knows to make posts. However, a low 25 minimum of quality posts sounds like a good compromise. As stated, it is the designer's choice in the end, but perhaps emphasizing making quality posts will result in a complete layout and good contribution the community.

• Is there a problem with our current system for Official Membership requirements?
  It's been discussed that having a minimum post count requirement encourages users to attain Official Membership in as little as 1-2 days by making quick, thoughtless posts. However, since the OM title is a reward for those who are actively a part of the community, the post count does need to play a role. One suggestion that is currently being discussed is the idea that in order to become an Official Member, the user must be a member for a set period of time (one month) and maintain a minimum ppd (assumedly 5). This is a lower post count requirement than the one currently put into place (about 150 compared to 200), but it doesn't allow for a user meeting all the requirements in just a couple of days - rather, it encourages the member to take his time getting acquainted with the community before collecting the posts. The problem is how to go about figuring out how long the user has been a member. Do we figure out the actual join date? I would rather use the timespan from the user's first post to the most recent.

I like the set period of time idea, it'll stop the rampage of come-and-go users that just want the title for nothing. However, I think a new formula needs to be worked out to include those who go on hiatus. Maybe only calculating posts per day of the weeks that they were actually active?

[*Uronacid*]

I can't stand the fact that:

When I'm not an official member I can't edit the title to my post. If I make an error, I can't fix it... it really upsets me.

[*Libertie*]

Having it visible causes pre-judgement, so I'd like to see it removed from view completely except, as you said, to the the individual and staff.

I agree with you, I'd like to get rid of the pre-judgment that goes along with seeing the post count next to a person's post. Do you think, then, that it should be removed from the user's profile (when you click their screenname) as well? I'd be satisfied with just having it removed from view when reading topics.

I like the set period of time idea, it'll stop the rampage of come-and-go users that just want the title for nothing. However, I think a new formula needs to be worked out to include those who go on hiatus. Maybe only calculating posts per day of the weeks that they were actually active?

I thought about this, and for Melissa, the user that actually started this discussion between Jordi and I, I actually looked over her most recent posts for the past couple of months to calculate her current ppd, so to speak. I would say that for cases such as this one, we should go by how active they currently are as opposed to how active they've been, but this creates a lot of extra work for the admins since there isn't a set way to keep track of it after OM status has been given to them. Admins have to keep checking to make sure Official Members are keeping up their 5 ppd requirement, and it would be pretty difficult to have to remember a specific set of users who have become exceptions to the rule. =\

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

I agree with you, I'd like to get rid of the pre-judgment that goes along with seeing the post count next to a person's post. Do you think, then, that it should be removed from the user's profile (when you click their screenname) as well? I'd be satisfied with just having it removed from view when reading topics.
I thought about this, and for Melissa, the user that actually started this discussion between Jordi and I, I actually looked over her most recent posts for the past couple of months to calculate her current ppd, so to speak. I would say that for cases such as this one, we should go by how active they currently are as opposed to how active they've been, but this creates a lot of extra work for the admins since there isn't a set way to keep track of it after OM status has been given to them. Admins have to keep checking to make sure Official Members are keeping up their 5 ppd requirement, and it would be pretty difficult to have to remember a specific set of users who have become exceptions to the rule. =\

I do agree that it will be an herculean task for the administrators to review post histories and decide wether to grant OM again or not, depending on the case.

I don't know if having a topic where users that go on a break could post and announce their departure would help with regards to keeping the number of cases for admins to study under control. It's quite likely that we'd need to set up a rule establishing that only people who post in that topic would have their cases reviewed, too. Under the light of the "CBers on leave", that is.

[MiSSxMELON]

In my opinion, post counts play a mixed role.

It's good in the sense that it shows activity in members, but post counts aren't the only factor. How often a member is on createblog is also a valid point.

In my case, I have a very low PPD, but I am on very often. The reasons why I have a low post count are, 1. When I first started cB, I focused more on submitting graphics than participating in the forums and 2. When I began to explore the forums, I only posted when I had something meaningful to say, such as expressing my opinions or thoughts, or I posted when others replied to what I said.

Unfortunately, because of the importance of PPDs, I doubt I will ever have a major "role" on cB, since mine is so low. However, I don't mind because I still contribute through submitting graphics.

And who knows? Once I start to get to know others better, I'll probably post more. IRL, no one would be able to get me to shut up. :D

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

I found this topic while lurking through the Lounge archives. It's not directly linked to this discussion, but rather I thought it would be strange if Official Members received this kind of treatment nowadays.

Woooooouldn't it be nice

[*Uronacid*]

I found this topic while lurking through the Lounge archives. It's not directly linked to this discussion, but rather I thought it would be strange if Official Members received this kind of treatment nowadays.

Woooooouldn't it be nice

It sucks that it's not like this anymore... truth is, no-one cares about post counts, and official membership anymore...