|
As long as post counting occurs and the count is there for display on FT in some form or another, moving toward consistency going forward is better than keeping things inconsistent going forward.
If there were to be elimination of official FT post counting display -- although unofficial count may still be manually achievable for some to figure out on one's own -- then the issue of consistency of count underlying support of this motion goes out the window. Having said that, I'm fine with post counts being displayed, even if someone posts content 10k-40k+ times that has little to no value for me.
Originally Posted by DeaconFlyer
(Post 17792161)
Who is treated unequally on FT when it comes to posts counting or not counting?
The fact remains that not every post made in every section of FT has been treated equally in terms of how it is or is not factored into post counts as displayed in association with FT member IDs. |
Originally Posted by Skyman65
(Post 17792276)
I explained it already in post #294, but I will try once again.
To answer your question, you and me are treated unequally. When I joined FT in 2004, every post that I made in OMNI contributed to my post count. So some percentage of the post count number you see in my profile is from posts I made in Omni. By the time you came along in 2009, the rules had changed. Omni posts no longer contributed to your post count. When this change was made, there was no retroactive "cleansing" of Omni posts from members' post count totals. So the number you see today from older members may include posts from Omni. Some members from that era took advantage of the rules of the time, and padded their post counts (in some cases, substantially) by playing number games in Omni. By doing this, they were able to "earn" Evangelist, or even Legend status. Under the rules which were in place at the time you joined, members could only build their post counts through non-Omni posts. So there you have the inequality of post counts. Do you understand now? |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 17792331)
As long as post counting occurs and the count is there for display on FT in some form or another, moving toward consistency going forward is better than keeping things inconsistent going forward.
If there were to be elimination of official FT post counting display -- although unofficial count may still be manually achievable for some to figure out on one's own -- then the issue of consistency of count underlying support of this motion goes out the window. Having said that, I'm fine with post counts being displayed, even if someone posts content 10k-40k+ times that has little to no value for me. I don't think so. Hence, I'd prefer to eliminate post counts altogether. |
Originally Posted by DeaconFlyer
(Post 17792343)
But right now, at this moment, (remembering that we can't go back and change the past) who is being treated unequally? Whose current posts (not post count) are counted differently?
|
Originally Posted by DeaconFlyer
(Post 17792343)
But right now, at this moment, (remembering that we can't go back and change the past) who is being treated unequally? Whose current posts (not post count) are counted differently?
OT posts are counted differently depending upon where they are posted. It doesn't matter who is posting it - it's where it's being posted. |
Originally Posted by DeaconFlyer
(Post 17792343)
But right now, at this moment, (remembering that we can't go back and change the past) who is being treated unequally? Whose current posts (not post count) are counted differently?
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 17792383)
This motion is about post count practice, and current post counts result in different FTers having their posts counted differently, including due to the post count practices differing over time that are now at issue with this motion.
|
Originally Posted by Mary2e
(Post 17792386)
It's not specific by user... it's by content.
OT posts are counted differently depending upon where they are posted. It doesn't matter who is posting it - it's where it's being posted. |
Because they are.
I can go to a lounge thread and post "good morning" and it has a value of +1 to this community. I can go into Omni and post "good morning" and it has no value a value of 0. That is the inconsistency we're talking about. |
Originally Posted by DeaconFlyer
(Post 17792410)
Then why are people claiming that posters are being treated unequally?
Edited to add - What Mary2e said. |
Originally Posted by Mary2e
(Post 17792428)
Because they are.
I can go to a lounge thread and post "good morning" and it has a value of +1 to this community. I can go into Omni and post "good morning" and it has no value a value of 0. That is the inconsistency we're talking about. |
Originally Posted by DeaconFlyer
(Post 17792433)
But the rules are the same for every poster. No one's post counts in OMNI. Everyone's posts count in Lounge threads.
Why should those posts be treated differently? |
I believe GUWonder is talking about something entirely different, something that I will not mention here about posters having different treatment. It's hinted at in the previous threads. It is not part of this discussion.
This motion is about treating all posts the same throughout FT to make it consistent. |
Originally Posted by Mary2e
(Post 17792447)
I believe GUWonder is talking about something entirely different, something that I will not mention here about posters having different treatment. It's hinted at in the previous threads. It is not part of this discussion.
This motion is about treating all posts the same throughout FT to make it consistent. |
If you had been around FT as long as I have, you would completely understand excatly what I'm talking about. [no offense intended] There is a very long history.
Omni, and people who post there, have always been the red-headed stepchildren of FT - and that continues to this day. They're also called Omni-ites. Can you tell me which other forum refers to their posters as -ites? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:34 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.