GUWonder

While this motion's language has "delinked"/"not linked" the removal of post counts from OMNI with those from other forums, the rationale applied to discount OMNI posts is not limited to just OMNI posts. After all, OMNI is not the only target that the advocates of this motion have in mind -- and after taking an inch, they'll be encouraged to seize more.

GUWonder

When I said:

I wasn't speaking of my own desires. I was speaking of the desires of at least a motion sponsor.

gleff

When the issue first came up, I didn't see a big problem to be addressed. Certainly not the problem that some members perceive. So I was a bit surprised by both the positive reaction by some, and the depth of negative reaction by others. It may just be that I'm not a big OMNI poster to begin with, so wasn't as sensitive to the issue as I might have been, and that I see post counts as a very minor fact of life.

I started off on the face, inclined against. To date I've probably moved more along that same direction, though not far enough to have actually cast my vote yet.

I just don't see members being misled by high post count individuals who got those post counts in OMNI rather than in travel forums (not that all the high post count folks in the travel forums know what they're talking about, either!). Not only haven't I found cases of members getting bad advice from OMNI Evangelists and believing it and being hurt by it, I haven't found a systematic problem of OMNI Evangelists giving out bad travel advice to start with.

So, not a huge deal.

On the other hand, there's a significant concern many members have about the justice of post counts -- members 'earning' all these posts in OMNI, not feeling that OMNI ought to count since this is Flyertalk. In other words, is OMNI really a part of the community? That sentiment or question definitely does exist out there, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to it. I'm comfortable addressing it in other ways -- ignore post counts and make titles something bestowed rather than automatic for instance. That's one idea that's a bit more tailored to the issue, IMHO. Now, it may not be the best idea -- but I'm kinda leaning towards at least debating other options besides OMNI post counts to address the issue before acting to remove OMNI post counts, especially retroactively.

And as to the matter of giving the best and most useful information to members, Kiwi Flyer offered an interesting suggestion in the thread that posts ought to display, perhaps, the number of posts a member has made in the particular forum where a thread appears. (That could, IMHO, be in addition to total post counts displayed.) I don't yet know if it's technically feasible, my limited understanding is that it wouldn't be an easy undertaking. I'm not wedded to this option and it may not be worth asking HOM folks to write the code. It's just one example of other methods of getting at the issues involved that I'd like to see explored, at least before removing post counts.

As you can tell, I'm leaning towards voting against. But I have been marginally so since the outset. I just haven't felt strongly or certainly enough about it that I've cast my vote yet. So I'm still open. And geez, what a thread read all the way through in a single sitting!

kokonutz

gleff: I think it's pretty clear that there ARE a couple of problems this debate has brought to light, namely:

1) Post-padding: OMNI has indeed become a place where post-padders roost. It is a simple thing, apparently, to post a reply to a counting game every 30 seconds and thereby rack up massive numbers of posts. I personally dont like the practice, but whatev, who am i to judge. HOWEVER, if this is the problem to be addressed then this proposal is the wrong way to do it. The correct way is via a ban on post-padding FT-wide. I could just as easily post-pad in UA as I could in OMNI, the difference being that I'd have to be slightly more clever about it to avoid the wrath of mods. Oh, and I'd really BE increasing the static to sound ratio in those forums. So rather than solving the post-padding problem, this proposal just makes it WORSE by sending the post-padding to other forums.

2) Evangelist title: We are a group of status-conscious people. We love our gold cards and not only for the perks, but also just so we can say we have them. I am quite sure it is the same with that title. And I have no doubt that, as with 1k lites and Thai Air mile-runners, there are some people who feel like some earn the title the 'hard way' and others game the system to earn it the 'easy way.' Do OMNI posts devalue posts in other forums? Only in the minds of those who a) care about it and b) post not so much in OMNI. But again, this proposal DOES NOT FIX THIS. As noted above, if someone is focused on the title, they'll just post pad elsewhere.

There ARE reasonable solutions to these issues.

Post-padding: They have been mentioned: move counting games to a forum that doesnt count while leaving 'substantive' omni threads alone, or simply ban non-substantive threads from omni (although I hate that response on an OUMower to the posters basis).

Evangelist title: kill it. Or bestow it. Or, hey, Power to the posters, ALLOW PEOPLE TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN TITLE! @:-)

But as Oz keeps saying, we are not talking about THOSE proposals. We are talking about the one under consideration right now.

And the bottom line here is that this proposal will make things WORSE, not better.

gleff

I agree with you.

I mentioned my thoughts on the Evangelist title (or more broadly, "Flyertalk status" and whether that ought to be automatically earned via post counts) above.

Although post padding - to my mind, and I know I'm in the minority here - is only a problem for members who are seeking to circumvent restrictions on access to OMNI and Coupon Connection. The old (since updated) Flyertalk Guidelines and Rules actually explicitly said that 'thumbs up' and 'right on' kinds of posts were appropriate in a community like ours. And I actually believe that, even though I voted for a TOS that didn't include that statement.

Japhydog

gleff, I appreciate your broad-minded and thoughtful approach to this issue. ^

GadgetFreak

I was shocked at the degree of post padding going on in a handful of threads in Omni. Ozstamps or Dovster posted the numbers and prior to that I had no idea. I dont think I have even opened one of the count up or down threads. I dont know if I consider it a problem but clearly some do.

I think a more specific and reasoned approach to the "problem" could be brought about in the following way.

1) defeat the pending motion
2) discuss and bring forth a motion to either move the Omni games (and lounge threads in points and miles) to separate locations and not count them, or ban them or only count 10 posts per thread per person or something like that.
3) Assuming some version of a motion described in point 2 passes, monitor the effect and see what happens.


Seems like a more focused and less disruptive approach than the motion under discussion, which I view as unfair and insulting, and probably at least somewhat counterproductive.

MapleLeaf

I started one as a joke and posted maybe 20 times in it; if I could I would have the thread removed. The others I don't post to, nor do I play WWBTNFTTP.

Agree with you completely. ^

Say are we on the same black helicopter?

dhammer53

I've been mulling this over the last few days. What bothers me is that a few posters are creating much of the noise. There has been lots of well thought out comments/suggestions from both sides of the aisle. But, those ideas are not part of the discussion. If members of TB factor in that noise, my guess is that the remaining TB members that haven't voted yet, should vote down (did I just say that) the proposal. If they do that, then I would expect to see another proposal worded in such a way to factor in all the positive points brought up in the 100's of threads before mine.



What I'm not looking forward to is all the new proposals that will populate these boards in the upcoming weeks.

Maybe these similar suggestions should only be considered once a year.
Oh wait. A similar though has already been posted.

Liz

IMO Omni should not be included in post count.

Prospero

I am largely indifferent on the subject of post counts. I do think those that need to practice their counting skills over on OMNI should be allowed to do so without fear of breaking the board T&C's

majorwibi

By singling out OMNI posts v. other posts we still have the same issue that posts in OMNI are not as good as say posting in the Delta Lounge thread. Unless we are going to break it out on a per forum basis I see that proposal as no better than the original proposal on the table.

Why not a words per post counting? If someone posts the majority of their posts in one of the OMNI games then their words per post will be extremely low and it would flag someone as a spammer in the eyes of most people.

If certain threads cause a problem in any forum the proper response is to moderate them out of existence not to lessen the value of the whole forum where these posts occur.


At least the data for the motivation behind this proposal is finally known (IMHO)

Take a poll of those who support OMNI posts actually being counted and I would bet that all of them think the game threads should go (via moderation).

OMNI helps build the FT community as a whole (and has as much a part of building it as "The Delta Lounge" thread) and by removing it from post counts we are saying that OMNI isnt a part of the FT community.

GadgetFreak

Exactly. I completely agree on all counts. The game threads are clearly post padding. Deal with them accordingly. But if doing that also gets rid of posts of people not doing it there are real issues of the effect on the community. Likewise, perhaps some of the more senior members need to reconcile themselves with the fact that the number of Evangelists will go up unless the title is eliminated or FT fails. More people here for more time equals more Evangelists. Not any way around that.

Gargoyle

Is the Black Helicopter SkyTeam? If so, I'm all for it. If not, accusations of secret mystery agendas just undermines the credibility of the accuser; lets keep this based on what is actually on the table, perhaps along with proposing reasonable alternatives.

This is somewhat* the position I have reached, which is different from my position when the proposal was first made. Move the games to an uncounted subforum, and perhaps modify the way post counts appear in our profiles.

*I disagree that removing counts from OMNI means it isn't part of the FT community; OMNI is already recognized as a special area, almost an "exclusive club"; it's a perk which comes with status, like complimentary upgrades and larger baggage limits. That will remain the case even if posts aren't tabulated.

SAT Lawyer

I also see the game threads as post-padding.

But the opponents of the proposal at issue continually maintain that not counting FlyerTalk posts is an affront to the spirit of community. How does this criticism allow wiggle room to not count posts in the games threads? Wouldn't that be making the very same type of value judgment about those threads that the critics of this proposal bemoan making when it comes to all of OMNI? And disenfranchising their participants, as those opponents like to claim about the broader proposal? I am at a complete loss to understand how opponents of Dovster's motion can rally behind this alternative.

I see multiple problems that are begging for a long-overdue solution: post-padding, false indicators of credibility, and an incentive to stray from the core mission of FlyerTalk.

There are multiple solutions. I think that the one under consideration is fine. The cries of harm from my fellow OMNI participants ring hollow when you realize that we all can continue to post in OMNI with impunity even if this reform passes. The only collateral consequence of its passage will be the deterrent effect for those OMNIites who actually put more stock in their inflated post counts than in the relevance and content of their actual posts.

But other solutions could capture some of the benefits, while alleviating the opponent's concerns. For example:
I think that the honorary titles must go no matter the outcome of this vote. They are silly, unhelpful, and breed jealousy.