More community feedback -- Character count for posting.

[Art]

Recently as most of you know, we added a new "No New Threads" group aimed at allowing us to curb some of the redundancy common here of late, while still allowing members to enjoy the community. Our thought being this was a lesser action than ban or read-only built-in administrative groups that still got the point across. Overwhelmingly the community supported this idea and we thank you. Those of you against it were not ignored. We've attempted to carefully apply this new group and we've already removed a number of people put there either by our mistake or through conversation after the fact.

Our next thought is to do something to foster the discussion aspect of this community. Given our size, it's very easy for dozens of posts with a word or two, or just smiles, to fill up a thread rapidly. Whether in agreement, or in criticism or insult, we're seeing a lot of the actual back and forth discussion aspect lost in some threads for the hyper activity caused by some of the posts that do a little less.

As of now the minimum character count to post is 10 characters. The word "characters" is 10 characters. That's all someone has to type in to get a post made on the board. We're considering upping this to 100 characters to start. Still easily accomplished, but requiring more than just smiles or flippant shots.

This could rise or fall based on community feedback.

A downside to something like this is there are a lot of posts that really ONLY require one-word feedback. Announcements of a new baby, wedding, sick family member and the like may only inspire a quick reply. A post that someone loves and wants to say he loves, may only need a, "Great post," in reply. Upping the limit would make people who do good work, or who need some community support feel a little lonely as people would not post as much in reply given the requirement to say more.

The upside, of course, is considerable in many ways. It forces people to fully form a thought in reply. If someone posts something CRAZY, it wouldn't be enough to tell him 100 times he's crazy. You'd have to type out a little of why, or, just leave it alone.

We are only in the beginning of considering this, so, if you guys really hate the idea maybe we'll look elsewhere to accomplish some of the conversational aspect that sometimes can get lost with size. But, I'm opening this up for conversation.

Let us know what you think.

[Art]

Bear in mind, character count is NOT word count. The simple act of making the cursor move forward counts as a character. Just so you're not confused when voting.

[SittingBull]

Although the idea sounds good alot of the fun threads of posting pictures would be lost such as the "Why we will beat _______" threads, the player lookalike threads, and the infamous Eli Manning thread. If there's a way the thread starter could allow less of a minimum word count for certain threads they started or maybe the mods could have authority on lessening it for those threads then it could work. Would signatures count as part of it? Otherwise people could just put a 100 characters into their signature and we're back to square one.

[MSJHWT]

I voted to leave it, for the reasons you mentioned. If the limit is increased I also can see it not really changing a lot. It would discourage some posts, but if people really didn't want to form out a reply, you can still say your one liner, and then hold down shift + 1, and just add a whole bunch of !s to get 100 chars.
I think that the ability to 'quick reply' in the right circumstances (I especially love the Live Game Threads and quick replying there) far outweights the negative.

[Art]

Although the idea sounds good alot of the fun threads of posting pictures would be lost such as the "Why we will beat _______" threads, the player lookalike threads, and the infamous Eli Manning thread. If there's a way the thread starter could allow less of a minimum word count for certain threads they started or maybe the mods could have authority on lessening it for those threads then it could work. Would signatures count as part of it? Otherwise people could just put a 100 characters into their signature and we're back to square one.

The count would be only for words typed in the reply box. Other ideas are to remove the quick reply window as that diminishes quick replies as people have to click through one screen to post :). You're right some posts like you're talking about could be lost or made more difficult with such a character restriction. That's a very good point. That would be something to require tweaking and evaluation for sure.

The key point is to encourage actual discussion and back and forth, so, we'd have to seek a balance between that and losing the fun stuff you speak of.

[Art]

I voted to leave it, for the reasons you mentioned. If the limit is increased I also can see it not really changing a lot. It would discourage some posts, but if people really didn't want to form out a reply, you can still say your one liner, and then hold down shift + 1, and just add a whole bunch of !s to get 100 chars.
I think that the ability to 'quick reply' in the right circumstances (I especially love the Live Game Threads and quick replying there) far outweights the negative.

No, because such people would be asked to leave :).

You are right though, there ARE times quick, short reply is perfect.

[kevinklein]

Well the Word Association, Song Name, and threads such as those would certainly take a dive. :(

Also during the season a lot of our favorite threads merit short supplies: karma threads, game threads, and Blondie's pre-game threads.

[skinsfanxxvi]

you have to leave it short for the philly fans. actually can we limit their character count to 5; plus the photo captions and fill in the blank joke threads are cool

[Warhead36]

I don't care what you do as long as the Quick Reply stays.

It is my baby!! Don't take it from me!! :(

[ArmchairRedskin]

I'm against it.

[Fergasun]

How about limit in The Stadium but exempt in Tailgate? I voted for it because it's not that hard to get 100 characters.

[bubba9497]

:no: :nono: :no: :nono: :no: :nono: :no: :nono:

[Renegade7]

100 characters would defeat the purpose of the "quick reply" feature. 20 or 30 characters would make sense, but 100? The great thing about this site is that if you do post without substance, you'll be ignored. I for one injoy the fact I can come in here, give my opinion quickly and just leave. I don't particularly care if people read my posts, so I'm not going to conform just to make people listen to me. Besides, I enjoy getting straight to the point. I don't need to use 100 characters to do that. Bad idea, imo, but that's just my opinion.

[sumodat]

I vote no. I think some of the most entertaining posts are quick one liners.

I think the smiley only posts should be frowned upon. Maybe against the rules.

But I think 100 character count would be too much. Maybe 25 or 30?

[[[ghost]]]

100 is a bit high, dont you think? i do agree with raising it however...

[jrockster21]

I think it is a great idea. People, its 100 characters, not 100 words. 100 Characters is a sentence. My response up to the period after the word sentence is 100 characters.

However if possible, this should be limited to the stadium. The "game threads" in the Tailgate already see people adding additional characters to get in the 10 characters necessary to post...it might get out of hand.

By the way -- aren't you in the "no new threads" group Art? ;) :laugh:

[skinfan2k]

i agree with renegade. Ive been on this website for 6 months and i just found out how to use quick reply. i think 100 characters is a bit much but is there a feature where users can control how many characters are required for a post? also, i i think 50 characters will be peferctly fine. I dont like how some indivudals boost their count. with thumbs up and other things like that. Also we should try to elimnate the smiley only posts(maybe after a certain number of characters u can use all the smileys u want.. IMO

[jrockster21]

i agree with renegade. Ive been on this website for 6 months and i just found out how to use quick reply. i think 100 characters is a bit much but is there a feature where users can control how many characters are required for a post? also, i i think 50 characters will be peferctly fine. I dont like how some indivudals boost their count. with thumbs up and other things like that. Also we should try to elimnate the smiley only posts(maybe after a certain number of characters u can use all the smileys u want.. IMO


What does quick reply have to do with anything? You can type 100 characters into the quick reply window...the word "quick" does not have anything to do with the speed of your response, just that you don't have to go to another window to reply.

[LarryBrownsFan]

I think a one hundred character minimum is a good idea. This post contains more than one hundred characters.

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

The idea is a good one but it should not apply to all threads. I reccommend adding an option when posting new threads to make it a 100 character repsonse only. THis way if someone does post a new thread hoping for intelligent debate they can click a button that would require responders to put together coherent thoughts.

As for a requirement for all responses...I think it is a bad idea. Sometimes all that is needed or wanted is a 3 word response. While some of the comments added are short and pointless that doesn't mean all short responses are like that (think of requests for links, stats or pictures/videos).

[visionary]

I don't think it would be a good idea to make too much of a change here. Maybe 30 or so characters or something like that. Are short replies really that hard to read through? I'd rather read short replies than watered-down or extra stuff that isn't really part of the post.

[skinfan2k]

What does quick reply have to do with anything? You can type 100 characters into the quick reply window...the word "quick" does not have anything to do with the speed of your response, just that you don't have to go to another window to reply.

sorry jrock, im sorry i included that. It was that i just found out how to use that thing. I always used to press post reply and my browser would freeze up when i try to type.

[jbooma]

dam then I can see it now 50 words, and then 25 smilies ;)

The only problem I see with this some replies to a specific question during a debate may not need 100 characters. I think 50 would be a fair number, since most of the times that should equal 1 good sentence, which is plenty to respond with your feedback.

[LarryBrownsFan]

While it may not always work, considering an idea thoroughly enough to form it into a complete sentence (continued next post, I'm already over 100)

[Park City Skins]

In a word. No. I don't think that this is the answer. I understand that many of us have and are scrambling to find ways to get things back under control here at Extreme, but I believe that this may be one of those times where over compensating comes into play. Over administration if you will. That's not a good thing imho. It's intrusive into the community. Instead of fostering conversation, it could very well limit it. Which you did mention in the intial post. I believe the downside of doing something like this outweighs the upside. Again, for the very reasons you and others have stated. This community has its fun moments and doing something like this can take away some of that. People end up searching for a way to add some characters and that alone could take away from what they are trying to say. Many times, one can say alot by saying very little and of course, the opposite is true.

I've said it before in a few threads and will say it again. The big thing here, to me, is the very issue raised by what Art stated as an "upside".


"The upside, of course, is considerable in many ways. It forces people to fully form a thought in reply. If someone posts something CRAZY, it wouldn't be enough to tell him 100 times he's crazy. You'd have to type out a little of why, or, just leave it alone."





On the first statement, not necessarily true. Matter of fact, my guess is that somehow those guilty of that kind of thing will simply find a way to say the same thing they did with a few more words. Not really adding anything of substance to the reply. Many of us have been around long enough to know this is true. Sure, those that do this could be asked to leave, but shouldn't they be already? Or better yet, do as I have suggested in the past in a few threads. If someone is in fact guilty of doing what was stated in the above quote, then we as members of the community should challenge that poster to tell us why something is crazy. Tell us why they disagree. Challenge them to think more. Either they will, or they won't respond. Either way the same thing is accomplished. And most importantly, it's accomplished by the community, not by administration. This to me is important because it helps continue to foster that sense of community that many here are trying so hard to gain back.

[LarryBrownsFan]

This proposed requirement will hamper the quick wits. And that's bad.

But it may also slow down those who only think they're quick wits. And that's good.

Why don't we give it try? Say, the month of April, for instance. Put a sticky note at the top of the forum letting people know what's going on. Then after a month, if we reach a consensus, we go with what that is. If not, well, I'm glad I'm not a mod.

[frankbones]

No.


:)

[Art]

Glad we asked before we did this one as the support is minimal to this point. Obviously the community doesn't want to lose some of the more endearing qualities of ES in the form of the "special" threads that stand out in our memories and they would be lost in the form we remember with such a constaint on post character count.

Whatever the vote in this thread turns out to be, one thing to bear in mind so no one is taken aback. The primary reason we even consider this as possible is because this is a discussion community, not a graffitti wall. There are discussions that require more input and less noise. The best way to achieve that is to simply hold ourselves each accountable :).

I don't like the character count either because it would have removed my taste test line regarding the cheerleader judging :). That's wit boys.

[HOF44]

I say leave it. One of the funniest posts I've seen was one word by Monte51Coleman. The word was just "duck". Made me spit soda though.

[Stew]

Either way is fine, but for those that only have one valid point, they are going to have to start spewing nonsense to fill the other 50 charactors they need to post. Its a double edged sword IMO.

[CTaylor42]

The game threads would be dead because I rarely type 100 characters in those threads. I type really slow. I am afraid that I might miss something if I had to type 100 characters. I think of those threads as more of a chat. Like we was talking to our friends at a game. At a game I will say "that's a sack" or "Touchdown" which is no where near 100 characters. I think 20-30 characters is closer to my typing speed.

[LarryBrownsFan]

...then we as members of the community should challenge that poster to tell us why something is crazy. Tell us why they disagree. Challenge them to think more. Either they will, or they won't respond. Either way the same thing is accomplished. And most importantly, it's accomplished by the community, not by administration. This to me is important because it helps continue to foster that sense of community that many here are trying so hard to gain back.

Good idea. And certainly the ideal solution. It'll take alot of work and patience.

The main difficulty I see is that you'd almost be encouraging the yo-yo's with big egos to challenge the other yo-yos. And then it deteriorates into a yo-yo tournament. And the mods have to step in anyway.

I'm not sure the ratio of PCS type posters to yo-yos is high enough for your strategy to work by itself. And every month that goes by, more thoughtful, but less commited to ES, posters decide not to wade through the mess to contribute to the community. And what's left?

Again, I say try it for a while. And if it doesn't work, really try to make PCS's strategy work.

[BlueTalon]

Bervity is the sould of wit, and there are times when a short little zinger is infinitely better than anything longer, so I'm inclined to be against it.

However, I would love to see a rule implemented that a post has to be more than just a smiley (or even more than several smileys).

[Kelvin Bryant]

Don't punish conciseness.

[LarryBrownsFan]

Is there any way the forum software can allow short posts, but keep track of how many a person makes?

Maybe set a limit of ten a month or some reasonable number?

If someone is really so good at being succint and witty that ten is not enough, then we need to give that person special treatment. You can tell from my posts that succint and witty posts are not my specialty, but I do enjoy reading them.

And CTaylor is right. Game day threads have to be excluded.

[bubba9497]

If someone is really so good at being succint and witty that ten is not enough, then we need to give that person special treatment. .


:bow:

[bubba9497]

However, I would love to see a rule implemented that a post has to be more than just a smiley (or even more than several smileys).


:nono:

[LarryBrownsFan]

:bow:

:laugh: See, that's exactly what I mean!

I really did laugh out loud!

[Sailskipper]

I think this is a wonderful idea. The point of the message boards is to create discussion, and that is hard to do when a post has 40 replies, only ten of which are more then "good post", "no way", or "What were you thinking?". By upping the required character count it would keep it so that there was more actual debate and less snide comments. A thread would mean more then the authors initial comment and a buch of yay's or neigh's following it. It would make the boards much more enjoyable.

[Art]

I think this is a wonderful idea. The point of the message boards is to create discussion, and that is hard to do when a post has 40 replies, only ten of which are more then "good post", "no way", or "What were you thinking?". By upping the required character count it would keep it so that there was more actual debate and less snide comments. A thread would mean more then the authors initial comment and a buch of yay's or neigh's following it. It would make the boards much more enjoyable.


Ding. That's why we're thinking about this. But, if the community is this strong against, we won't do it. That'd be nutty :).

[stevenaa]

I vote no. The guilty will post the same thing with less words.




The sentences above only total about 50 characters.

[peanut0862]

I voted no because I love reading when Art, Om. Bubba,Park city and the rest of the mods rag on each other. If ya'll had to think about how many characters you useing the humor might not be as good

[zoony]

I do not think this is a good idea.

...

[Park City Skins]

I do not think this is a good idea.

...
(1..2...3...carry the 2.......)

Hey. You need some more characters there pal. ;)

[zoony]

(1..2...3...carry the 2.......)

Hey. You need some more characters there pal. ;)


:laugh: After your discertation ( :notworthy ), what more was there to say? :)

[mrchslmnky]

100 characters really is not that much. In fact I am hitting it about right now. I don't believe, however, that upping the required count will actually encourage or stimulate conversation or debate. In order to do that we would need the material posted, and threby the person posting it, to be intelligent enough to spark that conversation or debate. I think the people that are capable of doing that already are doing it. Those that are not capable will still not be capable no matter how many characters they are forced to use.

And who doesn't like the witty one liners?:D

[jbooma]

you know what, i change my mind now, poor bubba :laugh: :laugh: ;)

[MisterPinstripe]

Democracy... Gotta love it. If the mods oppresse us we will RISE UP! :silly:

[BlueTalon]

Bubba, those two posts consecutive were flipping hilarious!

[Dah-Dee]

But, if the community is this strong against, we won't do it.


http://img222.exs.cx/img222/3006/eli8ar.jpg

"YAY!"

[mrchslmnky]

I am going to have nightmares over that picture.

[MisterPinstripe]

I am going to have nightmares over that picture.

lol... Tell me about it. That picture cracked me up.

[skinfan13]

if you do up the post requirments, how are we supposed to do our quick response games in tailgate????? ill be vary sad and frustrated when in the never ending story game or in the band game we have to post an extra 90 characters in addition to one name:2cents:


i have an idea though, why not mae it an option for the thread starter to control the character limit, kind of like poll responses are controled only by the thread starter, what would you guys think of that?

[santana4prez]

Great Idea Art it will make people put a little more thought into their posts.:applause:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

here's the thing that concerns me the most... some of the best conversations and discussion i have had here are ones in which both of us are online and replying quickly and efficiently back to each other on a thread while others chime in or simply read on to what we are saying. by allowing each individual post to be short, it carries the tone of a real conversation in which both people are engaged, as opposed to these dissertations which no one wants to read when two, three, four people are going back and forth.

i see the reason for upping the count, but for the reasons stated above, i'd leave it as is

[NewCliche21]

I love the concept, but I think it may be too much. If you look at most of the threads supporting the idea, they're almost all UNDER 100 characters. Especially for funny people on the board, as a quick retort is so much better than a few sentences. And if something is funny, then I think I'd ruin it by writing a hundered characters on WHY said joke was funny instead of just appreciating jokes by the laughing smiley. I think maybe there should be a daily cap on <100 word character posts or something like that. I mean, to be really honest, sometimes with some people on this board, especially Cowboy fans, all you really need to say is:

:doh:

[SackMachine]

No, because such people would be asked to leave :).

You are right though, there ARE times quick, short reply is perfect.

That was 97 characters :silly:

I think its a bad idea, sometimes ,as almost everyone as already stated, all you need is a small reply.

Short and sweet is sometimes the way to go. Small replies don't really matter, they take a shorter time to read anyways so IF they don't have any value you don't waste much time.

[Romberjo]

I'd support the "thread starter can mandate > 100 protocol" if that's technologically feasible.

And put me strongly in the camp of those who very much appreciate the mods trying to come up with some way to foster more thoughtful responses, and otherwise increasing the signal to noise ratio.

[Dallsux]

Although the idea sounds good alot of the fun threads of posting pictures would be lost such as the "Why we will beat _______" threads, the player lookalike threads, and the infamous Eli Manning thread. If there's a way the thread starter could allow less of a minimum word count for certain threads they started or maybe the mods could have authority on lessening it for those threads then it could work. Would signatures count as part of it? Otherwise people could just put a 100 characters into their signature and we're back to square one.




Is there a way to make the character count an option, like "show signature"? Something you can click on & off as the thread starter?

[Dallsux]

That was 97 characters :silly:

I think its a bad idea, sometimes ,as almost everyone as already stated, all you need is a small reply.

Short and sweet is sometimes the way to go. Small replies don't really matter, they take a shorter time to read anyways so IF they don't have any value you don't waste much time.




Actually, if you go back & count again, it's 122 characters. The smilie counts as 5 & don't forget the spaces. ;)

[mikeyf316]

There are times when I just want to thank somebody for posting a good article. Validation for their efforts. I know I don't make a hundred characters on those types of posts. For that reason alone, I voted no. I think that you've put forth a good concept, but the wrong execution to reach it. Unfortunately, I don't have another solution to offer at this time.

[RedskinsFanInTX]

:stop: no

[bubba9497]

I think this is a wonderful idea. The point of the message boards is to create discussion, and that is hard to do when a post has 40 replies, only ten of which are more then "good post", "no way", or "What were you thinking?". By upping the required character count it would keep it so that there was more actual debate and less snide comments. A thread would mean more then the authors initial comment and a buch of yay's or neigh's following it. It would make the boards much more enjoyable.



seriously, does skimming over some short comment really take away from a thread?

Short responses have their place... as stated before sometimes a few words convey a message better than any long thought out essay. Sometimes the point of the thread is simply wanting to see if people support your idea. adding a higher character limit would severely limit many people from sharing their yay or nay.

Lets be honest here, threads that warrant longer thought out posts to debate will get them. Trying to force them will in my opinion actually backfire. Many good threads will drop quickly for lack of support, many posters will just go back to lurking simply because it is more convenient than worrying about having enough characters in the post. Nothing is more irritating than posting something and get some error message (like in game day threads when you are posting too fast). It is going to curtail much of the spontaneity, and humor of many threads... and may slowly turn the board into one of those snotty anal boards with nothing but pseudo intellectual geeks acting superior sucking the life out of the board atmosphere.

[TheREALJBird]

Damn, well put Bubba

[Dallsux]

seriously, does skimming over some short comment really take away from a thread?

Short response have there place... as stated before sometimes a few words convey a message better than any long thought out essay. Sometimes the point of the thread is simply wanting to see if people support your idea. adding a higher character limit would severely limit many people from sharing their yay or nay.

Lets be honest here, threads that warrant longer thought out posts to debate will get them. Trying to force them will in my opinion actually backfire. Many good threads will drop quickly for lack of support, many posters will just go back to lurking simply because it is more convenient than worrying about having enough characters in the post. Nothing is more irritating than posting something and get some error message (like in game day threads when you are posting too fast). It is going to curtail much of the spontaneity, and humor of many threads... and may slowly turn the board into one of those snotty anal boards with nothing but pseudo intellectual geeks acting superior sucking the life out of the board atmosphere.




:applause: What he said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (just in case we're already at 100 CPP) :D

[Kosher Ham]

I wouldnt mind either way.

I understand the reasoning behind it, I understand those opposed that want to enjoy certain threads, I understand people that enjoy the quick witty one liners, however I also understand that certain posters come on here and simply post smileys, or a BS statement that just makes the thread even longer.

As far as game threads, IMO. They are terrible. A chat feature would be 10x better without having to read 70 pages or so (and my settings are at 40 posts/40 threads).

Get a chat feature, thats where its at.

[bubba9497]

BTW one of the greatest threads in the past couple years the "it's Brunell's fault" would never have happened with a character limit because 99% of the posts where just short funny responses.

it would also kill "why we will beat....." threads, the show your support post count threads, those spontaneous silly threads that take a life of their own. To me these type threads are just as important to the overall experience of the board as any long well thought out debate threads.

[21KO]

...may slowly turn the board into one of those snotty anal boards with nothing but pseudo intellectual geeks acting superior sucking the life out of the board atmosphere.

*cough*TAILGATE*cough*

jk





mostly :)

[The Animal Trainer]

Bad Idea....wait, gotta make it at least 10 characters.

There's my point, if you're still reading this, you are wasting your time. My message could be conveyed in my first 2 words, but now here you are, reading and reading and reading, when really I had nothing more to say than those 1st two words. So now I'll just keep going on and on, not really saying anything but trying to make my post sound more intelligent by adding words so that it seems longer, and more thought out, maybe better researched. But my original two words really made my point...the past minute you've spent reading this is a minute you will never be able to get back. Pretty sad actually. Wish I could have just posted, "Bad Idea"...I bet you do too. ;)

[DCthomahal]

For my part, I voted no.

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but what I would LOVE to see is very simply a "view all" link by the page navigation numbers.

I can scroll VERY quickly past any number of smiley faces and one word repartees as I keep track of the surrounding "serious" arguments (of how stupid a coach with a couple decades experience in football was for doing something or how big a nimrod a player is even though none of the posters could do his job better than him, etc.) IF -- IF I do not have to open innumerable pages to try to keep track of the whole thing.

Yes, the 200 page posts on gameday might get unwieldy even for broadband... but it would simply be an option that could be used to have everything spread out before you all at the same time (making the annoying bits much easier to "blurb" over).

I have set my preferences to the 40 posts per page and there may be some technical difficulties with providing this option (or a 250 post per page option or something like that) that I haven't got a clue about, but it seems like there are an awful lot of web sites with this type of choice available. And I think the reason is that this is the best way to deal with even huge amounts of info with high superfluous content --to lay it all out in front of people and let them whisk past the stuff that doesn't interest them. I bet there would be those that would skip all the WORDY posts (like this one) and just light on the quick hits with the sexy avatars and pictures.

Oh well, that's one partial solution that would make the postings a world more navigable and enjoyable for me. Just my :2cents:

[Dead Money]

I against removing the quick reply window.
I'm for increasing the character count (if need be)
But, I think 25-40 or 60 would suffice, 100 is prolly too much.

I understand what your doing, but feel that this place is going to have rules for the rules soon.

Also would this apply to every forum? Because IMO it would reduce the fun in the tailgate significantly if not completely. Sorry if answered I dont have time to read the whole thread.

:2cents:

[autograph]

I vote no also.

How about to just open a thread? :logo:

[Thinking Skins]

Why not leave this option to the person starting the thread?
If he wants it to be a thread that really discusses some concepts, then he can check the checkbox to enforce this rule.
But if its just one of the "We will beat Philly" threads, they should have the option not to enforce the rule.

Just add an extra alert prompt or checkbox on the 'New Thread' screen.

[Thinking Skins]

Bubba asked "seriously, does skimming over some short comment really take away from a thread?"

Not of its just one little response. But it gets more and more annoying as the number of these short responses on a single thread grows.

[carlsbadd]

I say no, sometimes a one or two word answer works fine

[jschlesi]

Brevity is the soul of wit.
Why take 100 characters if 30 will suffice.

[Art Monk Fan]

I lurked here for over a year before even registering. I made sure I understood the community I was joining, and I've attempted to remain respectful of that community since. Because of this, I'm very much in favor of the mods' attempts to curtail the recent swarm of newbies starting threads with impunity on their very first day, duplicating threads, etc. Hell, I've only started seven threads in a year-and-a-half and one of those was a classified listing -- which id just how it should be. To this proposal, however, I find myself opposed. I'd elaborate, but Art has pretty much summarized the reasons in his original post. To me, the drawbacks to this particular remedy simply outweigh the gains.

Not to mention the fact that "brevity is the soul of wit," and do we really want soul-less wit on this board?

[C.Taylor]

I vote no. I think some of the most entertaining posts are quick one liners.



My thought, exactly.

Would "merge please!" count as 100 characters?

[wskin44]

Sometimes someone posts a well thought out argument, or well researched data, and I just want to recognize their contribution by thanking them. I don't want to waste members' time by writing a long response which doesn't really add to or improve what was already said.

I just want to acknowledge a well done piece, hopefully encouraging the writer to post more or others to put more thought and effort into their contributions.

[bubba9497]

Bubba asked "seriously, does skimming over some short comment really take away from a thread?"

Not of its just one little response. But it gets more and more annoying as the number of these short responses on a single thread grows.


no offense, but that seems to be more of a personal issue, than a board problem. :)

[EnFoRcEr_uPu]

To be honest, I kind of like the idea. 100 characters is not much at all, and may force some people to actually explain WHY they are criticizing someone elses POV rather than just saying, "No, you're wrong."

[MarkPSkins]

You make people type 100 characters and they will, a smiley face and hold down the shift key or any key for that matter for a second. It wont work and you guys probably knew that going in.

[Neophyte]

I voted yes although I did so because the options where "yes" and "no". I am not sure 100 is the place to start but I am tired of scrolling through page after page of posts with 5 words or less or just smilies (sorry Bubba but that is annoying, big time).

I only have so much time during the day to see what is going on here and respond and the constant shoveling of crap is very irritating. In fact, some days I get so bent of shape over the low percentage of meaningful content that I just leave. I long for the good old days and I have only been here 27 months. Pretty sad actually.

Add to that the idea that this will help to curb the "post counters" (and we all know we have some here) and think some form of implimentation is a good idea.

[MarkPSkins]

no, you're wrong............................................. .........................................





The above contains 101 characters and it took me about two seconds longer to type than just the "no, you're wrong" part.

Nice concept, but it wont do what you want it to do.

[Grimm]

How about limit in The Stadium but exempt in Tailgate? I voted for it because it's not that hard to get 100 characters.

I like this idea

[Neophyte]

no offense, but that seems to be more of a personal issue, than a board problem. :)


No Bubba, it is not a personal issue. It is one of time. Few of us have the time to spend on this board that you do so we can't afford to spend it digging through mounds of posts that were dashed off faster than I put on my pants and with as little thought. It is annoying and frustrating.

To me, internet forums are for discussion and by definition discussion requires thought. Posting 1 to 5 words or just a couple of smilies does not require thought but if enough people do it (and currently there are a lot of them doing it a lot) then it really cuts down on how fast you can find and read the good stuff.

[Yusuf06]

I agree with the overall consensus (as I see it) to leave things as they are. While not seeming overly onerus, such a rule would make necessary simple replies into long exercises in adding enough bogus characters to get up to the limit. This holds true for everything from the cool (adding picture only posts) to the mundane yet useful (bump posts).

I agree with the intent but not necessarily the method.

[Dallsux]

I vote no also.

How about to just open a thread? :logo:


In that case, it should be 200...and I agree. That would eliminate some problems. Maybe not all & maybe not all the "target" problems, but I think this is a good idea. All too often, someone new comes in & says something brilliant & original like "Cowboys suck ass" & then when they get a tongue-lashing for starting a thread to say the same thing this site represents, they leave, frustrated that they were not as welcome as they expected. If they had to have 100+ characters in order to start a thread, it would cut down on alot of THOSE kinds of posts. I like that idea.

[Skeletor The Invincible]

Not having read everything here, I'm against it.

[33]

&*%^&*%^&(%^&*reason not to do it^&*^(&*^&*(^*

[bubba9497]

No Bubba, it is not a personal issue. It is one of time. Few of us have the time to spend on this board that you do so we can't afford to spend it digging through mounds of posts that were dashed off faster than I put on my pants and with as little thought. It is annoying and frustrating.

To me, internet forums are for discussion and by definition discussion requires thought. Posting 1 to 5 words or just a couple of smilies does not require thought but if enough people do it (and currently there are a lot of them doing it a lot) then it really cuts down on how fast you can find and read the good stuff.


If you don't have time to scroll through a page to find a long winded response, then how do you have the time to read longer responses, think about it and then respond?

yes it is a matter of personal issues, you said so yourself...
To me, internet forums are for discussion and by definition discussion requires thought.

There isn't that big of a problem, and the ratio of responses is no different than it was a couple of years ago.... just that there are more people posting due to success of the board's popularity. The real issue is many want the board to go back to being a small close knit community, but no amount of regulation will bring back the past. But it can throw a monkey wrench into the smooth flowing enjoyable atmosphere.

Let's be honest, the quality of response's are generated by the quality of the thread posted.. or the post being responded too. There is noway to control that, unless you close the board and make it a private, selected members only site, that you hand pick the members who best suit your personal tastes.

ES is for the fans of the Redskins, and other teams.... and just like at ball games there are many types of fans present, representing many levels of intelligence, personality, age, and backgrounds. A melting pot of thought and ideas, some good, some bad, just like a real community.

Just remember the number of words that are typed, doesn't rate the quality of the post.

[Art]

You make people type 100 characters and they will, a smiley face and hold down the shift key or any key for that matter for a second. It wont work and you guys probably knew that going in.

No, this wouldn't be a problem as I've said because people doing it would just be banned :).

[Monte51Coleman]

Responses don't ruin good discussions.

Good discussions can only take place when there are worthwhile topics to discuss. If one constantly has to 'pan' the first couple of pages to try and find a meaningful 'nugget' to debate it becomes redily apparent that the problem lies not with the responses, in most part, but the thread subjects.

It seems like many regard this place with the same respect as they would a mens room wall, believing, in essence, that it is their right to start a thread with whatever idea pops into their minds. Maybe they are right. Only the community, moderators, and administrators can ultimately make that decision.

With that said, it is clear to this member that the prevalent problems exist not because of the lack of response control but rests squarely with the lack of thread control.

[rvan1]

if this is imposed, it also creates difficulty in such things as answering questions, naming players, or giving brief examples in threads. However, adding the count would make people give more backup for their responses... i.e., if answering who is the best team in the nfl, instead of simply saying "redskins", one would have to add to the conversation by explaining why...

which brings me to my proposal---

is it possible to alter thread options so that the poster can specify whether they want 100 characters miniumum as they make the thread? so for those who just want to ask a question, they can get their answer quickly, and for those who want true discussion, not just names of teams or players in a debate, they can ask for an argument. Art?

[BLEED-B&G]

I would vote to not change, I don't really post a reply unless I really have something to say anyway but I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from posting.

After all it's the offseason and finding good topics to discuss are becoming more and more difficult most times a few words is all that is needed.

[SteelerSkins]

i thik the chatracter count could be upped, but ont too much . . . say 20 characters?

[Donita35]

Leave well enough alone. 100 is too much. Perhaps maybe you could think about extending the capacity of the treads if that is an issue. It seems to me that the only issue is the lack of thoughtful discussions, which may not be seen as an issue for some. Additionally, I do not think that increasing the mandatory character count will aid in this because all you would get is more crap because people will have to mumbo jumbo their way to 100 characters.

[Neophyte]

If you don't have time to scroll through a page to find a long winded response, then how do you have the time to read longer responses, think about it and then respond?

If we were talking about one or two instances it would not be a big deal. We aren't though. We are talking about pages on pages of it. Worse, the share volume of the quicky posts with one or two words or a smilie only adds to the number posts that are quality because people get tired of looking through a thread to see if someone already said what they are thinking and so just post their thought without knowing that it has been said 2, 3 or 4 times before. Or worse, they just start a new thread even though their thought has been beat to death in other threads. I am thinking of the rash of Lavar and Ramsey threads with no new ideas at all.

Not mention that volume slows servers and swallows bandwidth. Maybe not a lot here but it has to have some effect.




There isn't that big of a problem, and the ratio of responses is no different than it was a couple of years ago.... just that there are more people posting due to success of the board's popularity. The real issue is many want the board to go back to being a small close knit community, but no amount of regulation will bring back the past. But it can throw a monkey wrench into the smooth flowing enjoyable atmosphere.

I would argue this. When I first came here and lurked for a while there were a bit over 4000 registered users. I don't call that small and close knit. Even then, with that many users, I do not recall there being this many posts that contributed nothing to the discussion. If fact, I remember being impressed with how little of that there was compared to other boards of a similar size I was part of at the time.


Let's be honest, the quality of response's are generated by the quality of the thread posted.. or the post being responded too. There is noway to control that, unless you close the board and make it a private, selected members only site, that you hand pick the members who best suit your personal tastes.

I disagree with this. Many times here a quaility post will stir a rash of posts that consist in their totality of " :cheers: " or " :notworthy " or " :applause: " while a post of a questionable nature that should die a nature death and slide off the front page is kept alive with repeated posts of " :bsflag: " and " :pooh: ". And all just because they are easy and quick to do.


ES is for the fans of the Redskins, and other teams.... and just like at ball games there are many types of fans present, representing many levels of intelligence, personality, age, and backgrounds. A melting pot of thought and ideas, some good, some bad, just like a real community.

Agreed. I just don't view it as an excuse.


Just remember the number of words that are typed, doesn't rate the quality of the post.

On this we are completely agreed. Length does not equal quality. I am just hoping the requirement will discourage some of the non-quality.

[WinSkins]

No matter what character count you prefer for Extremeskins.com, please click on link below to vote for Marcus for AOL Fan Choice Award! He deserves our support! :cheers:
http://sports.aol.com/nfl/jbawards2006 (http://sports.aol.com/nfl/jbawards2006)

[McMetal]

I hate needless monosyllabic babble, but brevity truly is the soul of wit.

I don't want to restrict those who, like myself, are able to phrase keen sights concisely.

For the record, I still support minimum post counts for starting new threads though.

[sonsofwashington]

What is the main goal here? In so many words, eliminate the meaningless back and fourth banter created by quick replies that suggest very little. At the moment this web site cannot differentiate between a meaningful post and meaningless banter. Not an easy thing for a heartless, bloodless, web site to do, but I think that increasing the character count is just a thoughtless solution to complex problem (100 character limit is not going to stop anyone from posting whatever they want).

Setting the minimum character count to 100 is not the most effective solution (i am not implying that an effective solution is trivial). Consider that I could be a member who enters 5000 characters in one post everyday for a year (or whatever is considered a great contributor to the site). Should I be barred from placing a smiley in a post every once in a while. Well, I think not, but that is debatable.

So how do you determine what is good post and what is bad post. Tough question. Even if you could distinguish between a desireable and undesireable post to some degree, it may not be perfect and that may, at some point, directly affect every member of the community. Could get a lot of emails from the community in a short matter of time.

The general solution here is to define what type of posts the community is trying to eliminate, apply that definition to the post itself and flag it, then associate those posts with the member who created them. Then contact that member and suggest that he must make an attempt to produce more quantity in his post (quantity instead of quality becuase quality can really only be measured by the community and not the web server--if you find a way to program the server to measure quality please let me know :)..). Post flagging can be done a few time throughout the day on the servers own time. Contacting the momeber would be done the next time he logs in or even via email.


Undesireable posts could be defined as the following.
- short posts (includes smiles), created in a small period of time.
- short posts, created over a long period of time, with no long posts in between.
- etc.....i dont have any more time, but i could be persuaded to brainsorm if you PM me. your idea ia just as good as mine. that may not be saying much....lol.

Of course you will also have to implement something because members will always try to fool the system. In the begining this should really only be used a method to aid the moderators (i.e. whatever slips through the cracks.)

In short what I said suggests that a static character count is not the way to go. Algorithms that measure post quality (or flagging bad posts) based on certain factors is really a smarter way to go about it. Of course the latter is more complicated. Changing the character count....piece of cake. Well a well implemented system just might save this board, or at least bring it back to what it used to be......even before i was a member. The type of board i only use to hear about. cheers.

[sonsofwashington]

Or just make a VIP room for board vets. Access by invitation only. Nothing wrong with that. You have the public sector and you have the private sector. Is that legal? lol

[rvan1]

Or just make a VIP room for board vets. Access by invitation only. Nothing wrong with that. You have the public sector and you have the private sector. Is that legal? lol

i could kinda see that... but the problem is, all the good talks would be in the vip room, and new people would get discouraged when the public sectors conversation has filtered to nothing but brunell threads and what not.

[FBChick]

Personally, I didn't vote, but I'm in the boat of instead of 100, trying out 20 or 30, to see if it weeds out some. Though I don't think a minimum of 100 would bother me at all.

[Bang]

Some of the best jokes are only a few words.

~Bang

[sonsofwashington]

i could kinda see that... but the problem is, all the good talks would be in the vip room, and new people would get discouraged when the public sectors conversation has filtered to nothing but brunell threads and what not.

They can still see the threads in the VIP. They just can't post or reply. Maybe it will give them something to aspire to. Maybe they will take some of that to the public forums. If I owned the board I would certainly make sure I had my own table to sit at with the people I wanted to be with while still providing unlimited tables for others...but that is just me.

[Art]

We are obviously not bumping to 100 given the results here. We might bump it to 15 and see what happens. Then maybe 20. Generally the consensus here is there's a lot of merit in some threads that are made entirely of short, witty, sharp responses. I can't say as I disagree. Some of the ideas about letting the thread starter control character count to a degree, or only having it on new threads are items we'll look into but probably aren't possible.

We do appreciate the feedback as it is why we put this stuff up.

[Peregrine]

I think there are times for small short posts, and making them obselete just would take away from the boards. Yeah there are upsides to it, but not enough in my opinion.

[The Rook]

I have not voted yet because my choice is not up there.
I suggest that responses less than 100 characters do not count to your post amount. It would be up to each one of us to use the honor system to not circumvent the count. This works well for a couple of reasons - the fast, short, witty retort is not stopped AND more thoughtful responses are rewarded. :2cents:

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

[sonsofwashington]

If you can allow the computer to determine what is a good post and what is a bad post, i think you have your problem solved. How easy is that? Well, certainly it is a project that will evolve and get better as time goes on.....like search engines.....along came google and now the world collides with information complete differently than it did when msn and yahoo were the top dogs

[fight_on_til_you_have_won]

I voted no, because it only encourages long-winded replies. Hell, I bet my reply is less than 100 characters.

[CapitalDefense]

I would have voted yes if it was a little less, say 40-50 characters

100 is too much IMO

[Woofer]

I originally voted "Yes", but after reading some of the posts and excellent arguments against, I would like to change my vote to "No".

[RabidFan]

Don't take away the flippant shots Art...I mean thats the only entertaining thing on the Political discussions on the Tailgate.....cept for a few posts where I actually learn something and plagiarize it for my own discussion with friends. :)

[PCRoughrider]

I can't believe anyone would want to this. Forcing people to make posts of 100 characters when they only have a short comment is begging for a lot of non-sense in posts.

[Tarhog]

I originally voted "Yes", but after reading some of the posts and excellent arguments against, I would like to change my vote to "No".

I was going to say 'too late'.

Instead, I'll say 'too late because you already staked out your position and even though you've reconsidered its not fair to others to alter your vote in mid-thread since if we allowed that who's to say you wouldn't turn right around and change it again and if everyone did that this whole voting thing would be a mess wouldn't you agree?'.

I rest my case :)

[KAOSkins]

I originally voted "Yes", but after reading some of the posts and excellent arguments against, I would like to change my vote to "No".

I just voted No for you Woofer. You owe me. :D

Some of the best posts I have seen were very short. Almost all of the ones that make me laugh were short.

[Major Harris]

Well the Word Association, Song Name, and threads such as those would certainly take a dive. :(

Also during the season a lot of our favorite threads merit short supplies: karma threads, game threads, and Blondie's pre-game threads.
for reasons stated ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
i vote no.

i like the direction that the staff is headed, i.e. trying to improve the quality of the board, especially the stadium. i was all for the new group, and i like this idea, in some aspects.
however, imo, there are too many well-established traditions around here that would take a serious hit. :2cents:

[Major Harris]

I have not voted yet because my choice is not up there.
I suggest that responses less than 100 characters do not count to your post amount. It would be up to each one of us to use the honor system to not circumvent the count. This works well for a couple of reasons - the fast, short, witty retort is not stopped AND more thoughtful responses are rewarded. :2cents:

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
100 characters does not = thoughtful.
less than 100 does not = worthless.

[a_good_brotha]

I agree with the minimum character count. Although there should be some exceptions. Ex.- If someone makes a post you feel is funny, I think it would be okay to post just the "laughing" smily.

[bubba9497]

I was going to say 'too late'.

Instead, I'll say 'too late because you already staked out your position and even though you've reconsidered its not fair to others to alter your vote in mid-thread since if we allowed that who's to say you wouldn't turn right around and change it again and if everyone did that this whole voting thing would be a mess wouldn't you agree?'.

I rest my case :)


see what happens when you're forced to post 100 character minimum.


:D

[Thinking Skins]

Somebody questioned about the statement,

"merge thread"

which is clearly less than 100 characters. But this is such a common response that it probably deserves its own button. There should be a button at the bottom of the page for us to click on, kinda like a vote saying that we vote for this thread to be merged.

just my .02

[Jumbo]

...and may slowly turn the board into one of those snotty anal boards with nothing but pseudo intellectual geeks acting superior sucking the life out of the board atmosphere.


Right now, there's someone wondering if they can report this as part of a "call-out" post ;)

[TK]

Somebody questioned about the statement,

"merge thread"

which is clearly less than 100 characters. But this is such a common response that it probably deserves its own button. There should be a button at the bottom of the page for us to click on, kinda like a vote saying that we vote for this thread to be merged.

just my .02
There is such a button. It's in the top right hand corner of each post & looks like this : http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/themes/black/buttons/report.gif (http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/report.php?p=2384067) You may know it as the Report button. Simply include the link to the original thread for them to be merged.

[Tarhog]

see what happens when you're forced to post 100 character minimum.


:D

Uhhh....hey bubba....pssst.....that was the whole point of that nonsense paragraph......

I think the consensus is clearly sometimes less is more. Hey TK, someone finally said it ...size DOESN'T matter!!

[Park City Skins]

:whew: This is good. I was worried I'd actually have to say somethi.......




er......




I mean um... Get back to you on that.

:D

[TE#80]

How about limit in The Stadium but exempt in Tailgate? I voted for it because it's not that hard to get 100 characters.

:point2sky that was only 85 characters :rolleyes:

[Yusuf06]

We are obviously not bumping to 100 given the results here. We might bump it to 15 and see what happens. Then maybe 20. Generally the consensus here is there's a lot of merit in some threads that are made entirely of short, witty, sharp responses. I can't say as I disagree. Some of the ideas about letting the thread starter control character count to a degree, or only having it on new threads are items we'll look into but probably aren't possible.

We do appreciate the feedback as it is why we put this stuff up.


Fascists!!!! :)

[bubba9497]

Uhhh....hey bubba....pssst.....that was the whole point of that nonsense paragraph......

I think the consensus is clearly sometimes less is more. Hey TK, someone finally said it ...size DOESN'T matter!!



:kickcan: just teasing

[TK]

Hey TK, someone finally said it ...size DOESN'T matter!!
I guess you'll be able to get a good nights sleep now.:)