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.

[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.