+1 :p ;)

I have to give you ^ ^ on this point, Punki, one for insight into the matter and another for your consistency about it over the years. It's one sensible way of looking at participant metrics.

so would avatars! :D

(Sorry, just wanted to inject a little humor into this.)

Seriously, very good points Punki.

:D ^

It may be a guage, but not a very acurate one.

It might be that it's only a guage for those pre-occupied with a post count.

I know many, many members who visit frequently and participate whole heartedly. Not all participating members want to be Evangalists.

Yes it is a most totally and completely accurate gauge of how often someone visits and contributes to FlyerTalk. Who am I, or even you, to judge the value of their visit or contribution? We all come here and enjoy FT in our own fashion.

What each post by each poster says to me is that this person has chosen FlyerTalk as their cyber parking spot today. If they choose FlyerTalk as their cyber parking spot 10,000 times, I suspect they feel that it is their cyber home.

There was a time a few years back when a couple of FlyerTalkers rigged a way to accumulate thousands and thousands of posts without really posting at all. At the time if made me furious, but you know what, all that really says is that they knew lots of cyber tricks that I didn't know and used them to become FlyerTalk Evangelists because they cared about FlyerTalk. I am finally cool with that.

The bottom lline is that, with all of our individual warts, idiosyncrasies, scars, and pimples, we are here because we love FlyerTalk. I vote that we all just relax and learn to live and let live.

I'm not misinterpreting anything but you certainly seem to be.

That type of behavoir has the potential to wreak havoc with a system and if I remember correctly, it did then, too. And you are cool with that??

So, to be consistent with yourself, Punki, you must presumably applaud with both hands post-padding, since the person who writes "great post by the OP" in 500 threads is showing much more devotion to FT "one way or another" than the poster who just gives a considered answer to questions in just 50 threads?

The problem with your analysis, as I see it, is that post count per se is not a reliable indicator of meaningful participation in the community. So, displaying the post count as a "community"-gauge is inviting readers to jump to conclusions on the basis of garbage information. Not all "glimpses" on members necessarily convey meaningful information. Knowing how often a person visits the bathroom everyday would also give us a "glimpse" on them. This would not make it useful and meaningful quality information.

What makes things even worse is that the very fact of suggesting that this could be regarded as a participation-gauge tends to increase the likelihood of it being an even less reliable measure, as this brings us back to boys' metrics and "my post count is bigger than yours, hence I am a better FT member"-type competitiveness.

I've tried to stay far from this as much as I could...it just baffles me that supposedly mature people would spend so much time arguing about the benefits of, wait for it, POST COUNT.
I think a "package" needs to be voted for/against, and I am proposing to combine the following things that have been proposed before, but I 'm proposing them as a total package.

1) Hide post count from under-name details and put it into the member profile page. "Evangelist" and "Posting Legend" titles to be kept for relevant posters.

2) Create an OMNI subforum for threads with games / OMNI community posts ("tell us about yourself", "Omni Radio")

3) Include OMNI posts in the user's postcount, but exclude the ones in the subforum.

Thoughts?

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. :D

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

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.

No comment do far that I can see......
 

......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. :D

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. :eek:

OFTMFD :D (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! :)

If a post of yours is missing, it is because it is off-topic. Thank you.

Speaking for myself, I'm getting a bit tired (ok, way tired) of others who support Omni posts counting stating they represent the 'majority of FTers'.

Here's the bottom line - your vote/thought as a member represents you only. If others feel the same way (or differently) they can post & they'll represent only themselves. If they choose not to post, email or PM, that does not mean you (the generic you, not specific) suddenly get to represent them.

I'm not a techie so no idea how/if it could be implemented, but I like the idea of break-outs of posts so that people could see where the majority of them are (ie, UA, etc). Alternatively the 1 post count per thread also works for me. You get credit for posting, but aren't inflating the #s. Granted if someone is so obsessed that they would suddenly have to resort to padposting in multiple threads to get their posts up, they could do so. But I'd hazard a guess that mods of the travel forums would probably catch on to that. But getting out of logistics & back to the topic.

To all members of the TB: representing only myself - I vote against asking Randy to reconsider his decision.

Cheers.

Thought I should raise my head above the parapet and make a single post voicing my own view...

I am entirely comfortable with Randy's decision. That pretty much covers it ;)

Indeed.
The thing is, we have been there already in the past and we know that this is a divisive issue over which there is no overwhelming majority either way.

Now you would have thought that, armed with this knowledge, all TB members would have been relieved of having Randy deal with it and save us from going through yet another gazillion posts in which the temperature of the debate keeps rising at time goes by.

But no, some people are crusaders who know the Truth (with a capital T) and know that God is on their side and so think that it is worth having another religious war about this.

Not surprising given that of your 4000+ posts, a mere 39 of them were in OMNI. :)

Like I said earlier, it strikes me that a lot of the folks against this proposal never step inside the OMNI forum...

On the other hand, I also am against this proposal and I have 8737 posts on Omni.

As I have stated earlier, I would go a lot further than Randy has by including all the non-Miles and Posts forums and threads and making the whole thing retroactive -- which would reduce my post count far below the "Evangelist" level and leave that title to those who contribute to the sharing of knowledge about FT's raison d'etre.

Good, I wish everyone in this thread was as forthright as you.

As for your suggestion, I like it because it is at least consistent. Signaling out OMNI is a bad idea, IMHO.

As always, OFTMDA.

A modest proposal
 

How about we change the 10k moniker from "FT Evangelist" to "FT Addict"? Then maybe people wouldn't waste other members' time merely to increment the post counter.

Or we could remove them altogether. @:-)

Indeed. Reality-based monikers would have a progression like this:

FT Newbie
FT Lurker
FT Tortoise
FT Searcher
FT Explorer
FT Contributor
FT Loudmouth
FT Slut
FT Addict
FT Obsessive

:D

BTW, everyone posting here qualifies at least for the Addict level. :p

I am against this proposal and close to 1/3 of my total post count is OMNI based (2300+).

Why not include Coupon Connection posts?

FWIW, far from being relieved I was very surprised that Randy re-raised this controversial issue by implementing the non-counting policy in spite of a vote by the last TB that did not recommend that he do so (although a majority of the TB voted that the posts not count, it was not a super-majority required by the TB rules).

FWIW,though, I prefer to call it Pravda... ;)

There might, just might, be a message there.

Post Counts Are Not Objective Measures of FT Participation
 

I don't agree with the above logic.

Post counts can only represent the number of posts the say person post in FT. What those numbers tell us is another story. ;)

I visit FT EVERYDAY but I don't post daily. Sometimes I don't post a thing. At times, I post more than I should have (especially when I should focus on my dissertation. :o) Technically, my (public) post counts don't equate to the frequency of my FT visits.

FTers can participate or engage themselves in other ways (such as PM, email; even phone calls or DOs...etc). The current system of post counts doesn't assign a number to those kind of activities. However, for those FTers who engage in those activities ARE nothing less than participating/contributing.

Logic fallacy, again.

I don't know whether it's a lot or just few NEVER take a peek of OMNI. I wouldn't say for certain unless I have data to back me up. @:-)

It's true that not every FTer who had got the OMNI admittance visits OMNI. On the other hand, not every FTer who visits OMNI chooses to post. Speaking for myself, my 1st OMNI post was way after my 1st OMNI visit. I don't visit OMNI daily nor do I post there whenever I stop by. I am against counting OMNI posts and the current TB motion though.

Last but not least, not every FTer who supports Randy's decision choose to speak up by posting. On the other hand, for those FTers who are all for counting OMNI posts, some choose to be very vocal in this thread or any other places they deem fit. Speaking loudly or louder doesn't make anyone's own view the majority.

From this thread, here are some examples of who share similar thoughts like mine: