For those interested, while OMNI posts continue not to count, these gems are still "worthy" of a count:

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=793753

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=793586

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=556571

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=793033

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=343919

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=791722

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=793058

You'll note that some of these birthday threads have over 100 posts with the same people replying over and over. @:-)

Some more scattered gems:

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=793779

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=793452

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=793542

----

I'm afraid someone is going to have to explain to me how all of these threads are contributing to knowledge building in miles and points.

Incorrect. Let's actually check the record.

So, care to tell me (who wrote it) how when I wrote "I don't just mean OMNI" that it was "anti-OMNI nonsense?" Don't answer that--it's rhetorical given the actual text. Facts--pesky things, natch.

Sure. Randy did it anyway. There is a lesson here--it's not always about the popularity contest or who shouts the loudest (or most).

But I'll play--the vote was 5-4, so more of the Talkboard (at the time) agreed with me than agreed with your position). And, the motion did not mirror what I proposed--it was limited to OMNI.

Umm, wrong again. Randy stopped OMNI post counts from counting. Translation: he didn't agree with your "modest" proposal. If he did, he would have done what you asked for.

But I do give you credit for being consistent, just not factual.

Too bad you need a majority, eh? Facts can be a you know what sometimes.

Maybe you should run for TB next year.

A majority and/or Randy's agreement :D,

If Randy agreed with your proposal, he would have implemented it. Note that you just told me your proposal wasn't just anti-OMNI. ;)

Whenever you want to get back to discussing substantive issues and not your failed motions, please let me know.

I think that wingless had it right when she would create new user accounts so that she was always whatever the old designation for 1-249 posts was (Junior Member)? :)

:eek:

:eek::eek:

I think I've managed to stay out of this mess most of this time around, but my opinion is that after about 1000 posts, it really doesn't matter any more. I'd be all for limiting post counts to "useful" posts if somebody could define what those were. Since the FT membership does not seem to like the FatWallet approach of rating threads and posts +/0/-, I think that if the TB members want to fiddle with post counts, they should be forced to read each post with which they're fiddling. Or else toss them all way they way of +/0/-, and put yet another advertisement there instead.

I think you hurt your own case with that post. You listed 10 threads, which in total had 1255 posts.

"Who will be the next FlyerTalk member to post?" alone has 110,957 posts -- with over 1/3 of them being made by just three members.

You might be able to present arguments on other grounds but stay away from the numbers game -- it is a losing proposition for you.

What would this motion's passage actually accomplish that could not be done in the absence of this motion too?

Let me ask you something, Dovster. What is more disruptive to the FT community? A few threads with lots of posts or a lot of threads with few posts?

I'd vote for the second option.

But more to the point, I thought we established that this motion was not about the games? For if the problem was the games there is a simple solution.

Consider it a start. I'm working on the rest, much to the detriment of my own post count. One of the nice things about being on my side of the fence on this is that it's much easier to defend when one does not, say, have 19k posts (or more than 4 of every 5 posts) in one of the forums in question.

How about this: when can we stop claiming this is about "consistency," call a spade a spade, and admit that the whole effort to pin threads in miles/points forums up as "just as OMNI as OMNI" is simply an effort on the part of a vocal minority to continue to run up silly (and meaningless) post counts?

At some point it comes down to a judgment call. No reasonable person is going to argue with the fact that %95+ of OMNI is not miles/points, and maybe %5 of the threads in miles/points based forums are "OMNI-ish." The rest of this hyperbole is about the ability of a few members to run up insane post counts, and nothing more.

No reasonable person is going to say that %60-70 of what's in this f(TB) orum has anything to do with miles and points, either. Or techncial issues. Or the others listed in the modest proposal.

Finally, it's divine providence that this (removal of post counts from non-mile/point forums, starting with OMNI) has come to pass, simply because Dovster and I agree on something.

As I point out in the modest proposal, whacking non-mile/point forums from the post counts (and hopefully retroactively) makes post count a meaningful barometer of sorts when people come to Flyertalk to get advice on flying.

While I am not Dovster, I will take the liberty of taking a crack at this... On a scale of 1 (harmless) to 100 (FT should be immediately shut down by the TSA):

A few threads with a lot of posts: 8
A lot of threads with a few posts: 11
Too many idiots for members*: 50

So yes, consolidating posts into fewer threads improves FT by 28%. But in the scheme of things, it does not matter. What matters is that people who make stupid posts should be ignored, which is why VBulletin mercifully includes the ignore option.

ETA*: This could have been misconstrued as a personal criticism of magiciansampras. It is in no way so, I am talking here about generic concept of the idiot member here, and not commenting on who I have on my ignore list (of which magiciansampras is not one). I apologize if anybody took it that way.

Presumably, much like in "A Few Good Men", (if it passes) it will reiterate the objection and make the objector look just as foolish now that the judge has overruled again.

Nothing more than ad hominem. I could give a crap about my individual post count. I have said so before. Randy can reset it to zero for all I care (as long as I have access to OMNI, of course :)).

I do care though that my substantive posts in OMNI are deemed unworthy, however.

So let's say we agree on that issue. Why not deal with the problem (the minority that wants to up their post counts) instead of punishing the entire community by saying that their posts aren't worthy?

This I completely disagree with. I think most people have the intelligence to understand that post counts do not convey anything about information; it merely conveys activity.

If I have 30k posts due to the United forum and I wander in to AA, what is my 30k post count a barometer of?

I would almost argue the exact opposite of you: post counts can convey bad information that posters know something when they don't.

Couldn't agree more with this part of your analysis. In my view an "Ignore Thread" feature solves 99% of the problem here.

Also, I didn't take offense to you using me as an example of the idiot poster. I've been called far worse. :)

Then let's eliminate them entirely. I'm up for that, too.

A helluva lot more saavy and potential knowledge about Flying than "Counting backwards from 1 million."

Okay, so let's eliminate them completely.