Glen , If I might reiterate, if Omni posts are not to be counted(and I agree) shouldn't the various "lounge" threads be not counted also?
QSG

Heck let's not complicate things any further please.

I have a headache trying to de-code what exactly we are currently voting on. @:-)

I was responding 100% on topic to this thread which addressed OMNI posts, and the TB motions that have flowed from that specific member suggestion.

Any motion already proposed and seconded may not ordinarily be amended as voting is well underway on both. No TB member is at liberty right now to divulge any end result or updates, as the votes still have some time to run, so please don't assume OMNI pots are not to count. (We can of course reveal how we individually voted if we choose.)

Perhaps an idea might be to await the outcome of the current voting, and then raise a thread for any other areas that may appear similar in your view - if in fact TB ever votes to disallow OMNI posts to count.

Just noticed this...

a few facts...

1. As already pointed out by Choula, been done and undone already.
2. This board is paid for with advertisements. The higher the total post count, the higher the ad revenue.

What I don't know is that if removing the individual post counts removes the OMNI post counts from the total FT Post count. If it does, then the suggestion is to take revenue away from FT for a reason unbeknown to me.

underpressure - the number of actual posts does not change. 3 million posts is 3 million posts etc.

Whether the software shows those OMNI posts on your personal tally is what this thread is all about - if you go back to post #1.

Glen

You're missing the point. Some people post on OMNI *in order to* increase their post count. Removing that would, theoretically, remove revenue for FT.

Further, post counts in general, I believe, lead to more posting generally.

It doesn't (at least not retroactively), so then we get to "if it doesn't, then ______[fill in the blank]".

That assumes that FT is being paid for page views or ad images displayed and not click-throughs. In any event I don't understand why it bothers people to see high post counts. I enjoy seeing how many posts someone has made and don't really put too much thought into whether they are posting on OMNI or travel boards. I normally only look at the number after someone has come to my attention for something interesting that they've said. I'll wonder a bit more about them, look at their join date and then their post count. Of course if the total days since joining / the square root of their post count * the ID of the thread come to below 42 then I realise that they are not worth my time and ignore everything that they posted. Is there a way to ignore someone so as to not see the posts they make?

Yes, you can put any user on ignore... and then you never see their posts.

I suggest we change the title of this thread to something a bit more Shakespearian. Perhaps Much Ado About Nothing.

The argument against including Omni posts in the post count, as put forward by Movie Man, was that "many FTers naturally also tend to give more credibility to posters with more post counts than those with less, whether deserved or not. This happens both everyday and during special occasions such as the TB elections."

Indeed, had that been true, it would have been the only reasonable argument against post counts (be they from Omni or elsewhere). However, experience indicates that it does not hold up.

Below are the top 21 vote-getters in the last TalkBoard election, in the order that they finished. I don't know how many posts each had when the polls closed but I do have the figures from about two weeks later. Please note that there is very little correspondence between how many posts candidates made and where they finished in the election.

Instead of looking at posts counts, it seems fairly obvious to me that the voters looked at what the candidates were saying and voted accordingly.

Some points to be noted:

1. The candidate with the highest post count, Doc (45,676) tied for 5th place with ScottC (30,814) and Bhatnasx (4182).

2. Gleff, who finished first, had a lower post count than 5 other candidates.

3. MissyDarlin, who finished third, had a lower post count than 10 other candidates.

4. VPescado (1786 posts); Marathon Man (1819); John C (458); nxs (3212); and RadioMan (510) all came in ahead of Camera Guy, who had 3266 posts.

Don't underestimate the intelligence of your fellow F/Ters. They judge posts on their contents, not on their frequency.

Gleff 12,293
OzStamps 25,752
MissyDarlin 5964
Cholula 9840
ScottC 30,814
Doc 45,676
Bhatnasx 4182
FewMiles 9608
Kokonutz 7237
Shareholder 17,076
VPescado 1786
Peterophy 3327
Stimpy 8886
Markie 3608
Socrates 4140
Parnel 14,321
Marathon Man 1819
John C 458
nxs - 3212
Radioman 510
CameraGuy 3266

2 small caveats:

i) you cannot ignore moderators
ii) if someone quotes the guy you have ignored, you will see their post.

Cheers

Well, I never said that post count was the only factor that mattered in the elections. Just that it may be something that some people take into account when selecting candidates, and they really shouldn't. Having said that, thank you for your analysis. I was too lazy.

True... but I could never BELIEVE that someone would WANT to put a moderator on ignore....

YES, that is a joke....

I honestly did not know about the second caveat... since I have no one on ignore.... thanks for that info.!!!!

Then there are some who are posting anything and everything, including responses that include just " " in what could appear to be a race to reach "evangelist" status as quickly as possible.

I see your point, but unfortunately many posters (particularly those new to FT or new to a forum) may take only post count into consideration, and not have any idea as to the "quality vs quantity" w/r/t the person's post count. I can think of many FTers with high post counts who have been very helpful in providing information to the FT community. Likewise, there are a few around who have a high post count and a high number of those posts consist of nothing more than telling a poster that they are incorrect without bothering to correct explain what the misinformation is or provide the correct information, posts that contain nothing but smilies or other smilie-related comments (ie, making up "smilies" of one's own definition). Why should posts of that sort be considered any more "valuable" than posts from OMNI?

Unfortunately, OMNI isn't the only forum where that happens. I'd like to see the postcounts go away...or at the very least do away with labels such as "evangelist" to discourage the "race" some seem to be in to get there.

Maybe TB could consider a motion that raises to minimum about of words in a message in order to prevent things like " " and "I agee"

Just a thought...

Cheers