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.

[*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.

[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?

[*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.