Having a "number for times thanked" count

grizzly

I think it would be beneficial to have "number for times thanked" under the posters post-count. It would encourage people to make better posts.

As it stands people are rewarded for posting by getting their post count up (I know I always check someone's post-count as a matter of habit). Which only encourages volume but not quality.

I realise this would probably be a coding nightmare.

Any thoughts?

javaboy

It was enabled for a while. I see where you're coming from but it probably just leads to thanks whoring.

I know the same can be said about post count but post count is handy for mods. Meh.

Latchy

grizzly wrote: »

I think it would be beneficial to have "number for times thanked" under the posters post-count. It would encourage people to make better posts.

As it stands people are rewarded for posting by getting their post count up (I know I always check someone's post-count as a matter of habit). Which only encourages volume but not quality.

I realise this would probably be a coding nightmare.

Any thoughts?

I agree with you about the posting for the sake of posting ,volume over quantity . There is always a number of threads which are just plain Naff imo ,and I have posted on a few myself .But they just clog up the very busy forum .

Kiera

javaboy wrote: »

It was enabled for a while. I see where you're coming from but it probably just leads to thanks whoring.

I know the same can be said about post count but post count is handy for mods. Meh.

Ah but i think people are more clued up now to the "thanks" whoring posters.

Latchy

Kiera wrote: »

Ah but i think people are more clued up now to the "thanks" whoring posters.

And we all want to be thanked for the right reasons ,right ?

Like thanking somebody because there my friend or coke dealer as opposed to doing so because you agree with them

Kiera

latchyco wrote: »

And we all want to be thanked for the right reasons ,right ?

Like thanking somebody because there my friend or coke dealer as opposed to doing so because you agree with them

This may very well happen. I'm very greedy with my thanks so if you dont make me laugh out loud (by not being a "try-hard") or say something intelligent then you dont get any.

Latchy

Kiera wrote: »

This may very well happen. I'm very greedy with my thanks so if you dont make me laugh out loud (by not being a "try-hard") or say something intelligent then you dont get any.

I think I am quite genourous with my thanks ,probably to much but agree about the laugter /inteligence value .Otherwise a thanks can be wasted and cheapened.





* Jots down reminder to try make Kiera laugh soon *

orestes

As an experiment into the subject of thanks-whoring I am going to thank every single post that is made in this thread.

Beruthiel

grizzly wrote: »

I think it would be beneficial to have "number for times thanked" under the posters post-count.

It won't happen.
When we had the rep system people abused it, big time.
This is why you can only find peoples 'thanked' posts in their profile. Most of us don't bother looking so there has been no real abuse of the system and only genuine comments get thanked.

orestes

Beruthiel wrote: »

It won't happen.
When we had the rep system people abused it, big time.
This is why you can only find peoples 'thanked' posts in their profile. Most of us don't bother looking so there has been no real abuse of the system and only genuine comments get thanked.

That one was genuine, honest

/runs

Beruthiel

Beruthiel wrote: »

so there has been no real abuse of the system and only genuine comments get thanked.

'Cept for this thread that is......

Terry

LMAO @ orestes.

AckwelFoley

grizzly wrote: »

I think it would be beneficial to have "number for times thanked" under the posters post-count. It would encourage people to make better posts.

As it stands people are rewarded for posting by getting their post count up (I know I always check someone's post-count as a matter of habit). Which only encourages volume but not quality.

I realise this would probably be a coding nightmare.

Any thoughts?

i agree with the sentiment, but in practice people dont get "thanked" solely for quality posts.

I believe ive been thanked over 1100 times, i pride myself on posting shoite that will turn you off your dinner, and dampen your will to live.

see where im going with this?

However if one posts solely in PI or say renewable energies, getting thanks there hold more weight for posts.

AlmightyCushion

in for the thanks Is orestes gonna thank every post in this thread?

javaboy

Orestes likes Boyzone.

Steve

javaboy wrote: »

It was enabled for a while. I see where you're coming from but it probably just leads to thanks whoring.

+1
I would say definitely rather than probably.

I know the same can be said about post count but post count is handy for mods. Meh.

I'm curious as to why you said that jb, surely you moderate the content regardless of e-penis postcount?

javaboy

SteveC wrote: »

I'm curious as to why you said that jb, surely you moderate the content regardless of e-penis postcount?

Of course. But it's a handy clue as to whether they might be a re-reg or a troublemaker or a spammer.

Gary ITR

I don't like Orestes

Steve

javaboy wrote: »

Of course. But it's a handy clue as to whether they might be a re-reg or a troublemaker or a spammer.

That's a very good point jb, and would you consider a highly thanked poster in the same light (if it were displayed)?

(I'm just trolling for thanks to see will Orestes give up btw..;):D)

javaboy

SteveC wrote: »

That's a very good point jb, and would you consider a highly thanked poster in the same light (if it were displayed)?

(I'm just trolling for thanks to see will Orestes give up btw..;):D)

I suppose but then there's always exceptions. Like the 6th most thanked poster for instance.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Hello.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

Steve

javaboy wrote: »

I suppose but then there's always exceptions. Like the 6th most thanked poster for instance.

look again...;)

javaboy

SteveC wrote: »

look again...;)

No I was right the first time.

AckwelFoley

Orestes has ran out of "thanks"


Ha Ha!! Ownedz by the internet.

grizzly

snyper wrote: »

Orestes has ran out of "thanks"


Ha Ha!! Ownedz by the internet.

Wait, what if you could run out of "thanks"? If you had a max of 3 per day to spend. It would make it a much more meaningful gesture.

Jonathan

Is he really?

javaboy

grizzly wrote: »

Wait, what if you could run out of "thanks"? If you had a max of 3 per day to spend. It would make it a much more meaningful gesture.

You do. It used to be 10. Now I think it's 25.

Terry

javaboy wrote: »

Of course. But it's a handy clue as to whether they might be a re-reg or a troublemaker or a spammer.

That's how I read it.

It's easier to spot a re-reg when you can see a post count.

I don't ever recall banning Mike65 or Victor, but I have banned several people with a post count of over 10,000. I'd have no problem doing the same to someone with lots of thanked posts.

Stop screwing around. You screw around too much.

AckwelFoley

javaboy wrote: »

You do. It used to be 10. Now I think it's 25.

10 was better imo

dr.bollocko

julep wrote: »

That's how I read it.

It's easier to spot a re-reg when you can see a post count.

I don't ever recall banning Mike65 or Victor, but I have banned several people with a post count of over 10,000. I'd have no problem doing the same to someone with lots of thanked posts.

Stop screwing around. You screw around too much.

Youre too coy mister thanked 1987 times.

Still though we could play a game of "Ban the poster with the biggest postcount" in AH.
I love the way I take this all so seriously.