For those who think Omni is a bad hangout, try it and get to know the people there. I used to frequent the political threads there but found those to be too polarized. However, there are many threads there that are a great way to relieve my daily stress from work and travel. I have met some great people and the Who's Next to Post On Omni game has great people there. One thing is that this game has never had a flame post and the theme is very warm and friendly. I cannot say that for almost all threads and forums on FlyerTalk. I think Omni is valuable to aid in community for FlyerTalk and value many of the posts there. I think that most Omni posts I read add to FlyerTalk than some of the rants and attacks in posts I have read elsewhere on FlyerTalk.

and no need to worry about being accused of padding your post count anymore.

Great post, RobotDoctor! I can fully second it...!

edited to add: The game thread has 448 new posts since Randys announcement, which seems not to be slower than before...

Right on RobotDoctor. The who will post nest thread is one of the few threads on FT that I know of that award a prize of some kind at the end of the quarter. If thats not giving back, what is. Granted the political threads are heated, so avoid them if you like. Either way give Omni a chance you might be surprised.

How about rather than getting "zero" post count for an OMNI post, you get "-1" or "-5" or something like that. So, once you get to the 100 post minimum, you've got to maintain activity in other forums in order to maintain the minimum post level to continue to post in OMNI. And it would be really great if this could be done retroactively. I think you'd find some long-time posters with 5,000+ post counts suddenly find themselves at a negative 2,000 non-OMNI-eligible post count.

(or maybe I just thought this post would be a good opportunity to get me one post closer to OMNI-eligiblity)

I appreciate the recent changes, but let's not make any harder for the tech guys at the HOM than it really is.

aloha

...So if I post here, does it up my post count? ...Kickass!

Just 86 to go.

I do see the need for the rule change but it is unfortunately very unfair to those who joined the conga line and completed their requirements in good faith. I think it would have been fairer to announce the rule change as going into effect at some date in the future (e.g. 60 days), which at least would have given some of those who had signed up under the previously extant policy a chance to get their completed referrals.

Just my two cents, and another precious post down.

I never knew the # of times you post was such an important thing to those with many posts. It isn't like you get a raise in salary, folks.

So does the post count reflect the number of post a person has as of the time that I'm looking at the person's post, or is it the number of posts the person had when they made the post? I think it updates, retroactively, everytime you post. So if ABCFlyer made post #12 in 2003 and post #878 today, I think that the 2003 post would indicate 878 posts if I looked at that post today.

I think that's just wrong. I mean, back in 2003, ABCFlyer was an idiot with only 12 posts, so you've got to take his/her advice with a grain of salt. But today, with 878 posts, what ABCFlyer says is pretty much gospel. Right?

Every post will always show your current number.

And I wouldn't take anything as gospel, be it a member with 1 post or with 100,000 posts

I can point you to a few people who have 10 x 878 posts and are firmly in the former group and many members who hardly ever post who posts are far more "evangelical" than very heavy posters (some work for airlines, etc.) Post count should and does mean nothing to an informed FTer, however I still maintain that the "evangelist" tag can be very, very misleading to a new member.

I absolutely agree! I am very wary of evangelists of all kinds and some of these FT evangelists are actually quite informative, knowledgeable and generous. And they don't seem to want anything from me!

Best wishes,

Teacher49

That's right, the 2 SWUs were just a "free-will offering"