The only thing that post counts gauge "totally and completely" is the number of posts a visitor has. Contibution? counting down from 10 billion doesn't really qualify as contributing in my book.

Maybe we need a count of valuable posts and a separate count of useless posts.

Oh, wait, I've got it: We need a reputation feature.

I've been thinking of some other approaches, too, such as counting no more than 25 posts in a single day, and then stopping the counter until the next day. That would certainly limit post padding!

Or perhaps, on an issue which has proven highly divisive in the past and over which reasonable people can reasonably disagree, it might have been wiser to let sleeping dogs lie rather than agitate the issue precisely at a time when Randy has made a decision?

I agree. In fact, I was surprised when, coming here to start the one about FT Reviews, I saw this thread. I had been thinking the matter was closed.

......but there is a HUGE amount of chaff in the way.

ninerfan posted the following (a long way ago). I think it is worth revisting (although not sure if it technically feasible):

This seems like a good idea to me, and would get around a lot of the issues which have been raised. Total Post Count (TPC) could still show in a members profile, but if someone has 9765 posts in the QF forum, 2012 in the BA forum and 23 in the AA forum, than the 23 showing next to their AA posts would show them to be probably (but not necessarily) a newbie as far as AA goes, but knows their stuff as far as QF goes (because the post count shows 9765).

Not sure how well this would translate into other forums though (OW, for example, or those of us QF regulars who stray into the South Pacific forum).

Still, ways around this.

Dave

I've stayed out of this debate until now but have followed it daily. Personally, the only thing that really bothers me is that a unilateral decision was made by Randy to fix something that was from years ago. Then when called on it, he went into defensive mode instead of listening and weighing the options. Even when it was demonstrated that it indeed was not an error, but was acknowledge in subsequent years and even voted down by TB members. It really appears as though he felt like he was backed into a corner and refuses now to even reconsider and that's a shame.

I agree with much of what Punki posted. Quite honestly, I don't even know what my post count is and it does not matter, but I do visit the entire site including Omni on a daily basis. I do feel it is a community and will contribute to any of the sections where I feel I can contribute. I never really get into the whole thread counting games but am not bothered by those that do.

Drawing the line that Omni posts are worthless yet the endless posts of Birthday wishes and ^ posts is irrational and I feel don't contribute anything more to the community. I know I personally have learned a ton out of Omni and rarely get anything out of the Community Forum so who's to say what is of value. Let's just leave well enough alone. I would also be fine if they wanted to move the counting threads to a game forum that does not count, and I suspect the number of those games will dwindle.

It just seems that Randy is making this decision, doesn't like to be told he is wrong, and now we are all trying to find ways to defend the actions and justify the existance of TB when in fact it really does all just come down to whatever Randy feels like doing.

How about the TB making a recommendation that everyone's post count be incremented to a random number between 200K and 500K posts.

This way those that say Post Counts don't mean anything can have their way as it would be almost impossible to tell who actually has posted and who hasn't. Those that think Post Count size means something will now have really high post counts and can strut their stuff around the living room all day.

Everyone wins.

BTW, my personal views are that if a higher post count gets me free tickets, free rooms, free upgrades, the ability to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentation of the women, then I'm all for post counts. If they don't help with any of the above, then maybe we are spending a lot of energy on something that just doesn't matter.

OFTMFD (I like that, you don't mind if I start using it do you?)

Ah, but that would not work. What really matters in the post count is to show that your own count is massively bigger than everybody else's, so if everybody's is increased, that defeats the purpose.
But the randomisation idea is, in itself, brilliant. Everyday, there should be a lottery in which 100 random Flyertalkers whose post count is above the omni legal minimum see their post count increased by a random number of anywhere between 200K and 500K and 100 other random FTers see their post count decreased by an equal amount.

Just to clarify what I meant when I said Randy was wrong - he said he was fixing a system glitch from years ago. In fact, it was demonstrated numerous times that while it may have been a glitch it was brought to the attention of him and others many times since then and that a decision was made to retain Omni post counts. Now, when confronted with the facts of those comments, he continues to just defend the unilateral decision he made most recently instead of at least reconsidering what was agreed to in subsequent discussions.

I personally also think he is wrong to decide Omni posts shouldn't count when others do count, but yes - that is my opinion. I think he is wrong - or at least has not considered all options before implementing the change.

tazi writes:

Like I said, initially I was upset about it, but they were both folks who had otherwise contributed a lot to FlyerTalk, and still do. Randy dealt with it and life went on. I don't remember that it actually caused any problems, but it certainly could have had it continued and even spread. I suspect that there were probably less than a dozen FlyerTalkers who even noticed the anomaly.

You know, ninerfan, it really isn't up to me to judge the value of another member's posts. I may not understand the thrill of posting one number after the other, but it that is how another member chooses to spend their day, who am I to tell them they are wrong?

My point is that if they are spending their days posting their numbers, here on FlyerTalk, rather than on Facebook, it is because FlyerTalk is their cyberhome.

BTW, thadocta and graraps , both of you have made some very interesting suggestions. Thank you.

Since Randy made his decision (again) the other day, why are we still discussing this? Not trying to be sassy, really -- I've just gone through all the posts since we got the second no, and it seems like it is still a done deal. I read quickly, however, so perhaps I missed something.

It's important to see how our TB members vote so that the members can see what kind of representation they are getting. It is important that the TB follow through with a vote so that every issue goes on the public record.

I disagree. Some issues are better handled informally so as to preserve collegiality and to be respectful of people's strong feelings.

By analogy, there are subjects best addressed by posting and others best addressed by PM. That doesn't mean that you should PM material that you would be embarrassed to post. It means that PM shields people's feelings.

From my perspective only:

There is an elected TalkBoard that Randy created to give him feedback on what could make Flyertalk an even better place.

The feedback process entails a member of the TB making a motion recommending that Randy do something, a second TB member seconding that motion then a super-majority of TB members voting in favor of that motion in order to make formal TB recommendations to Randy that something be changed about Flyertalk.

During that process, after the motion has been seconded, the TB members have three weeks gather poster input before voting on the motion.

That is the period we are currently in on the motion to recommend to Randy that he reconsider his decision to implement the policy of not counting OMNI posts and instead include OMNI post counts in a posters post total.

Once the TB makes a formal recommendation to Randy he is free to act on it (or not) as he sees fit. Our role is advisory only.

The process is slow and deliberate on purpose. It is based on two principles:

1) While tweaks are always needed, FT basically works so it changing things should require a high hurdle.

2) It's Randy's house and at the end of the day his decision is the only one that matters, but he places a high value on poster input, especially as delivered though the TB process.

Anyway, hope that clears up where and why we are in this process.

Unfortunately, such quiet diplomacy leaves posters totally in the dark as to why the people they elected to represent their views to Randy are not doing so, particularly when it fails. From such activities are bad blood and black helicopters born.

There is a formal process for providing poster feedback to Randy. The process provides for maximum poster input and transparency. Those are good things.

OFTMFD!