In my mind this is more about TB making the right decision, regardless of what the topic is. The last thing I want is TB inserting its nose into a problem that doesn't exist with a 'fix' that doesn't fix anything.

Very good question.

Do any of the motion's sponsors have empirical evidence to support their position?

Can someone point out an instance where someone got bad advice and took it at face value because the poster had a high post count?

Thanks!

Exactly. I have yet to see a cogent argument of:

a) what is broken here and cannot be addressed by things that are already on play in FT;

or

b) what is broken here and will be fixed for all FTers (past, present and new) by this proposal.

FWIW, all posts on FT should count toward one's post totals, no matter what forum on posts on. First of all, number of posts does not equate to travel knowledge. Second, there are some forums, like the geographic forums, where travel is not discussed. For example, I've been on the NYC forum asking about a good burger place in the city, when I live one hour from NY. That was not a travel discussion.

My vote, not that I have one, is for all posts to count!

Those who oppose this change apparently claim that post counts are relatively meaningless and ergo there is no need to discount posts that don't contribute to the essential purpose of this board: miles and points.

But if post counts are really so unimportant, then why are the opponents of this reform so adamant about preserving them as is?

:confused:

This is what I was thinking all along, as I went thru page and page of this thread.

And then, someone summed it up quite well:
So, why bring it up? If there is not a problem, don't try to fix it, just because some people got their panties in a knot!

Although I would lose 50% of my post count, I am in favor of not having ONMI posts count in the total.

I admit that many of that 50% is in 2 of the "count" threads, but another member who has over 17000 posts has more than 10000 posts in on "count" and almost 4000 in another "count". Because of this member, I try to stay away whenever he is on - as he posts every 30-40 seconds and can have 5-10 pages of his posts alone!

You may have some travel knowledge to share (including where the best burger in ___ is, how do you get from ___ to ___, etc...), but when 70% or more of your posts are in a "count" - does that make you have more knowledge? :confused:

I think many became "Evangelists" mainly due to ONMI. :rolleyes:

That is not my position at all. I don't think post counts are meaningless at all. I just don't think they are meaningless when it comes to any one particular poster's travel knowledge.

What I am questioning is 1) what the problem is and 2) how this fixes anything. These are questions that seem to be evaded...

But many people do think there is a problem, and a number of those views have been articulated here. Brian's comment at milepost 158 was just one such clear and coherent opinion. In particular, note his use of the word "prominent".

:D
The opponents are also adamant about saying that no one has stated a reason why this is a problem, yet I've seen a number of posts (including the one cited above) from folks explaining their reasons.

The possibility of removing those post counts certainly seems threatening to quite a number of people, while others feel the inclusion of those post counts weakens FT. Those strong opinions make this worthy of discussion and a vote; it's a good thing that it is on the table and out in the open.

I'm strongly in favor of this.

There are already measures in place to deal with this. Please see the post-padding responses.

Then I don't understand you point at all.

In what way are post counts on FlyerTalk meaningful, in your opinion?

What critical purpose is served by allowing post count inflation that is unrelated to miles and points?

(1) The problem is that post counts, as is, falsely reflect the importance and contributions of many posters to the core purpose of FlyerTalk: miles and points.

(2) The proposal fixes the problem of having posters earn titles like "Evangelist" and inflate their own statistical contribution to the board through non-mile and point related posts on OMNI. The change may discourage excessive and meaningless posting on OMNI. Alternatively, the offending posters may continue to frequently post in OMNI, but at least their statistical contribution to FlyerTalk will be measured by the times -- probably infrequent -- when they actually make a contribution to understanding and appreciating miles and points.

The "problem" stated above explicitly states that it is a small number of users that makes things uncomfortable for everyone else. The logical response, in my mind, is to deal with those users directly rather than make wholesale changes to the way FT operates. We already have post-padding measures in place. Why not strengthen those rather than single out one forum where posts don't count towards post-counts. Seems quite backward if you ask me.

Again, if the aim is to have post counts reflect travel knowledge then there are a whole lot more forums than OMNI that need to be restricted.

I think they create a sense of community. They show which posters are quite active on FT. They *can show* (with the exception of a very small number of people) who has been around these parts for awhile. And finally, I think they help drive traffic. Just like people fly more to get miles, (some) people post more to get more posts.

1) Then I would assume that you'd be for having posts not count in a whole variety of forums, including this one, CommunityBuzz, Travel Security, etc. etc., yes?

Why not "fix" the "problem" by getting to the core. Why are we signaling out one forum?

2) What evidence do you have that this is actually a problem? I know you have a theory. That theory is that inflated importance is a problem. But what empirical evidence backs this up? Where are all the legions of users getting screwed from bad advice given by people with 20,000 posts?

3) If it is a problem, it is with the user who is translating "high posts" to "knows a lot." I think a disclaimer, like I mentioned above, would help this.

As stated above, there are measures already in place to prevent "post-padding," which is the "problem" you're mentioning. What are wrong with those measures?

In addition, what does this proposal solve? We'll still have a bunch of folks with inflated post-counts that do not reflect their travel knowledge. If you want travel knowledge we should be giving out multiple choice tests. Do you support that?

If that's a problem, it's only a problem because of an individual's inability to make a proper judgment on their own behalf. Other than that, it's not a problem -- it's a derivative of a problem -- and in any event, that's a problem which this proposal won't fix.