Suggestion - Hide number of posts and join date for a weeks trial

Talliesin

here.from.day.1 wrote:

In cases where a person is looking for help or suchlike, the post count can sometimes show how reputable the poster is.

If people really think that then there is indeed an argument in favour of not showing post count. Some particularly disreputable posters have high post counts.

here.from.day.1 wrote:

Example - If looking for help with a pc, a reponse from a person with a very high post count would generally indicate he knows what he is talking about, as opposed to somebody who has just joined and wants to mess with the OPs head. Just an opinion.

Or that they posted 8,000 posts on AH and have just discovered that we have a forum about PCs?

We had a very high postcount troll for a while who was forever posting "helpful" advice on technical matters that was deeply clueless (it's still not clear whether that was part of their trolling or they were just clueless - my guess is they were clueless but knew they were clueless and hence it was a relatively subtle troll like much of the rest of their trolling, which was part of the reason they lasted so long).

We did indeed experiment with post-count settings for a while. It did indeed have very little effect.

The arguments above seem to fall into the following three groups:

1. Status is bad.
2. Status is good.
3. Status is good but people are taking the wrong things as clues towards someone's status.

I think the third argument is correct, but I also think it's impossible to stop. People will always be looking for cues as to how much weight they can give an opinion and people will always get it wrong a lot of the time. Really, there's little point removing something that's just a fun little piece of trivia about a user just because it's yet another thing people will give inappropriate weight to. People will just find something else.

Once someone has actually been around boards for any length of time they will begin to form positive and negative opinions about users based on their own values and apply them appropriately. This is how it should be - you should pay more attention to someone who seems to be of like mind to you or admirable in some way.

Post-count fetishism is something smart users will quickly grow out of. Similarly with the mod tags. Sure persistently stupid people will focus on it disproportionally but persistently stupid people will always do stupid things and dealing with them should be a matter of necessary damage control followed by ignoring them.

Crucifix

I think it probably wouldn't make much of a difference, but more importantly, I don't think it'd make a clearly noticable difference. If you do a trial run are you really going to be able to analyse it at the end?
Other than that, sure why not give it a go. That period where everyone's postcounts went mad was a good laugh.

copacetic

Talliesin wrote:

Post-count fetishism is something smart users will quickly grow out of. Similarly with the mod tags. Sure persistently stupid people will focus on it disproportionally but persistently stupid people will always do stupid things and dealing with them should be a matter of necessary damage control followed by ignoring them.

Well again, I'd agree with this. The experiment could be a way to help us determine how many boardsies fit into the category of 'smart users', it could be us all, or a small minority.

I have yet to see any argument for not trying this again except that some peoples opinion is that it won't make a difference. An attitude which would have prevented any worthwhile discovery of the 19th and 20th century!

I'm sure all of you from a scientific or sociological/physchology background would jump at the chance to try such an experiment to actually discover if this is true. As I said above this isn't a philosophy, it's a trial to actually discover and measure the results. I'm of the opinion that there would be at least some affects, and I have yet to see anyone disagree. If they are significant and measurable or not (and how to do so) would be part of the trial results.

petes

But then how would we recognise pighead from his anonymous posts?

copacetic

Crucifix wrote:

I think it probably wouldn't make much of a difference, but more importantly, I don't think it'd make a clearly noticable difference. If you do a trial run are you really going to be able to analyse it at the end?
Other than that, sure why not give it a go. That period where everyone's postcounts went mad was a good laugh.

well this is were I do see the problem with trying it. How to tell?!
It's also where I disagree with some posters who say it makes no difference without any evidence to back up their position.

I'm open to ideas but I'd be looking for empirical evidence with admin help. If we trialed it for a week that should give us a decent sample size of post traffic, ave post length, reported posts, bannings, posts/user, posts/forum etc etc.

This could then be compared to other weeks to look for any changes, maybe low post count users started posting more and longer. etc etc. Perhaps the tech forums would have a lot less posts when people don't have postcount to judge merit on. Maybe reported posts would shoot up, but bannings wouldn't as people report more freely but people haven't actual done anything more wrong that usual. Or perhaps bannings would go up.

Who is to say without trying, results would be very hard to judge without actual evidence imo. 'Very little would change' is meaningless imo.

jester77

I was going to reply saying that it wouldn't make a differnence but I'm slightly humbled by your superior post count

copacetic

petes wrote:

But then how would we recognise pighead from his anonymous posts?

another special case worthy of noting, maybe we all think pighead is a god because we give him the benefit of the doubt. would his posts stand up to scrutiny on there own, without his rep behind them?

copacetic

jester77 wrote:

I was going to reply saying that it wouldn't make a differnence but I'm slightly humbled by your superior post count

you've been here much longer though! perhaps your lower posts/day means you contribute higher quality?

(but did I mention I was here back in the day and returned after a few years with a forgotten user id? curse my memory, I could have been a contender)

jester77

copacetic wrote:

you've been here much longer though! perhaps your lower posts/day means you contribute higher quality?

That would depend on us agreeing on what the definition of quality is, but I would consider some of my posts in the BG&RH forum as quality

jhegarty

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Get rid of all usernames, sigs, post counts etc for a while. How interesting.

why not go the whole hog...

"Delete * From Boards"

Sangre

Of course a large post count makes a difference, it gives you the benefit of the doubt.

God knows many of my posts would have got me banned if I had been a poster regged for a month with only 10 posts.

AlmightyCushion

petes wrote:

But then how would we recognise pighead from his anonymous posts?

He speaks in the third person and calls everyone a cnut in pretty much everypost he makes. It wouldn't be that hard.

@jester77 - Good old beerguts. That forum is nothing but quality and I suggest you agree or the strike team will be informed.