Poll: Fluff posts (post count inflating) a ban?

As per DavidW's request in the thread "Post Counter":
[ QUOTE ]
DavidW said:
Take this to the members. Someone start a poll in cafe to see if fluff posts is a banning offense. If the general membership thinks so I'll consider turning it back on.

[/ QUOTE ]


Dan

I think banning is a little harsh, a warning should be issued first imho.

[ QUOTE ]
Josh said:
I think banning is a little harsh, a warning should be issued first imho.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't banning usually come with a one time warn? That's what I remember Sasha saying... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

Dan

This isn't such a clear issue. On the one hand, if someone posts in every thread with something as simple is the word "Hi" it would be no brainer.

It becomes difficult when someone posts something that others consider to be non-contributing. For instance, in the Kidney Stone thread I posted something that I thought would be somewhat lighthearted but it didn't deal with the pain or discomfort of having kidney stones.

Someone might argue my post was non-contributing and perhaps in a strict sense it was. However, if you can't be a little less formal in The Cafe I don't know where you can.

Fluff to inflate post counts can be dealt with on a case by case basis. It's a totality thing.

I think turning off the post counter has been a much simpler solution.

Pat

[ QUOTE ]
I think banning is a little harsh, a warning should be issued first imho.

[/ QUOTE ]


Of course.

If I do decide to turn it back on, drawing the line will be difficult. Say someone posts a thumbsup smilie? In response to a great idea in the modding forum I see it's ok. In the practice forum it's obviously upping a post count. Or is it? Maybe they're happy someone finally figured out how to post pics.

Enforcing will only add to the admin/mod workload.

Re: Poll: Fluff posts (post count inflating) a ban

Here's my question. Other than vanity, why the heck would anyone give two craps about post count? Anyone who's spent enough time on these boards quickly learns who is serious, who is a dabbler, who is a greenie and who is just plain bad news.

One might argue it gives an idea of how legit a given poster is. Rubbish. It just indicates 1) who has time on their hands to post alot and 2) the desire to post alot. One might argue that the reg date is a good indicator of flashaholicness. Bah. There are geniuses out there who have been playing with light and torches for years who have just discovered this website.

This website is about cameraderie and content. If you care to spend any time here, everything besides what's in a person's posts is irrelevant.

Curmudgeonly Yours,
Wilkey

Boy, this is a tough one.

Since one of the costs of running this board is directly tied to traffic volume, fluff can lead to higher cost without any greater exposure for the advertisers. Another downside to fluff is that it takes longer to read through useless stuff.

But, like DavidW said, how do you control it?

We have all seen the posts that admit to bumping their count, but beyond something this obvious, how do the admins judge what fluff is?

Even though I found it interesting to see a member's post count, I think removing it has already been effective. That is, I have not seen anyone admit to doing this for a while in the threads that I frequent. However, the asterisks are still there. So, there is still "some" insentive to pad the post count.

I guess I would prefer anything that is self regulating to making the admins study every post to determine its hidden intent.

Chuck

Re: Poll: Fluff posts (post count inflating) a ban

Ginsing,

On many points you are likely right. However for some of us, or at least myself, I can't remember names worth a poop. I look to post count as a possible indicator of activity and involvement of a person on CPF. I give someone the benefit of the doubt and assume that the number of posts is somewhat indicative of a level of contribution. I also tend to cut more slack, as it were to someone who has a low post count. Bottom line is of course best based on actual content of post and independent of overall quality or quantity.

As to vanity, man I'm real vain! I don't look at *my* post count but do factor in the post count of someone I might be responding to.

I don't know if you were around about a year ago when a couple times, someone came in to B/S/T and on their first post offered pricing on green lasers that was just too good to be true! Believe me that seeing a person's post count can have bearing on B/S/T if no where else!

I thought the intent of this poll was to determin whether or not to reinstate the post count number but I guess this will be determined based on banning or not banning someone based on fluff posting.

- Don

I voted YES, but with some clarification. First, I think some clarification of what exactly "fluff-posts" are. Interpretion is critical here. If I start a thread, asking advice or seeking help and respond by thanking people, is that considered "fluff"? If I see an interesting post and PM someone, then enter a message that says "PM Sent", is that "fluff"? In the B/S/T forum, if I honor the sellers request of sending an e-mail if interested in a product, then I enter "E-Mail Sent", is that considered "fluff"?

I think you can see where I'm going with this. We have to be careful not to make folks fearful of free-spirit posting, however those making "fluff" posts (whatever that actually means) need to be disciplined someway.

Fluff?

Peter

[ QUOTE ]
LitFuse said:
Fluff?

Peter

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope not! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Now that's entertainment!

I was under the impression that "Fluff" was used in this context as unnecessary additional posts with the sole intent of raising one's post count. Perhaps the solution is such that we can view everyone's post count but our own? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Anyone ever play "indian poker" ? You hold one card on your forehead, exposed to the other players so you know what everyone has but yourself? You then bet based on the assumption that your card is the highest?

- Don

[ QUOTE ]
LitFuse said:
Fluff?

Peter

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh great. I knew that was going to come up... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif I think of "fluff" as "repeated postings", not "bad content" - although fluff is comprised of both. My "Ummm..." thread was pointless, I must admit, but it only raised me like 3 posts. So what? Now if I were to make another "Ummm..." thread, that might be cutting it...

Just my 2 cents...

Dan

Re: Poll: Fluff posts (post count inflating) a ban

[ QUOTE ]
LitFuse said:
Fluff?

Peter

[/ QUOTE ]

I would certainly hope not.

I would hope that we could follow the guidance of DavidW and Sasha in what is good and what is not and note that within the first 7 replys they were BOTH already involved with that thread, making it a fine thing to do.

What is 'fluff?' I don't really know for sure, nor am I the one who has to figure it out. I've seen 'fluff,' but I also may have posted what seemed 'fluff' to others but felt somehow to have meaning to me. I guess it's a personal thing, eh?

Drawing a line is necessary WITH OR WITHOUT the counters, and some sort of guidline is probably needed in either case.

While I've heard it said that the number of 'fluff' posts has gone down with the removal of the counters, I honestly believe that there are two other reasons for this that have even more effect: 1) Serious discussion of it being a bad thing, with a couple of individuals singled out, in public, for doing it, and 2) the somewhat reduced desire to post possibly felt by many currently. I know, for example, that my post rate has probably dropped, but that's not from removing 'fluff.'

I think banning is an appropriate response to a person who posts excess 'fluff' and ignores warnings not to. Just like ANY OTHER behavoir that is in some way unacceptable to those making the decisions.

Therefore, simply including 'fluff' posting in the increasing list of no-no's, and officially warning those who annoy that they are close to the edge, is probably enough. That also saves having to "define" 'fluff' posting: You recognize it when you see it even if you can't define it. (A la the US Supreme Court and obscenity.)

In other words, treat 'fluff' just as one would any other infraction once it is listed as a no-no.

My vote was "ban th' buggers!" I do miss the counter, and if that's what it takes to reinstate that feature ...

I liked the post counts and I did find them valuable when considering BST transactions with folks whom I did not recognize the user name. Flagrant abuse shouldn't be tolerated, and hopefully won't recur anywhere on CPF anyway given the new "tough love" policy. I'd love to see the counters come back.

Dave

Re: Poll: Fluff posts (post count inflating) a ban

I'm not quite sure where this concern over fluff posts is coming from -

Especially in the Cafe, where off topic posts and drivel is standard.

Is there a thread out there with some guy just replying to him/herself over and over? Otherwise, posts that toe the line between contributing and non-contributing have to be tolerated.

Otherwise, people will be afraid to post anything, and that's a lot worse than (possibly imagined) post fluffing.

Re: Poll: Fluff posts (post count inflating) a ban

It seems a bit odd that people are posting fluff in order to raise their post count. If this board has some scripting/macro capabilities you might consider writing an admin command that does the following.

1. Removes the message and replaces it with something like 'please stay on topic' etc.
2. Reduce their post count by 10 posts, 100 posts etc.
3. If too many infractions occur by the user then delete the account.

It should then be quite obvious to these guys if they want to get their posts up, then they have to do it by really contributing to the forum. I think the fluffers would either see the light or get their account removed rather quickly.

Re: Poll: Fluff posts (post count inflating) a ban

[ QUOTE ]
shrap said:
Is there a thread out there with some guy just replying to him/herself over and over?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, yes. There was a thread called The Neverending Story in the Cafe - this person would continue his own ending of the story - one word in one post... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Dan

If the Ummm... thread isn't fluff, then fluff isn't defineable.

To me this thread looks like a blatant attempt to pad post counts and yet the starter of the thread (and several others) swear that it was not. Nonetheless, if people were going to be banned for fluff, I don't see how most of the posters in this thread would be allowed to remain on CPF.

This would is why I voted against a return of the post counter and against banning people for fluff.

Pat

Is it possible to turn off a fluffer's counter? Can counts be subtracted? Lose 100 counts for each fluff! I'd just as soon leave it turned off....enforcement could be a nightmare.