post count??

Anyone else noticed their post count not changing? I don't really care, but just though it strange. I've been at 202 for the last couple days...

odd.

*edit*

...GREAT...now it starts working again.

NEVERMIND...

...it did stop working for a while though...really!

Posts only count these days if the post contains more than 100 characters.

That's probably what you've been experiencing.

I'm not sure if there was an announcement about this, but it's filtering out anyway.

it happened to me too, maybe somthing wrong with the software, anyhuu Mike probably fixed it.

Posts only count these days if the post contains more than 100 characters.

That's probably what you've been experiencing.

I'm not sure if there was an announcement about this, but it's filtering out anyway.

AHA!

(see...it didn't change!)

...Thanks.

When you say characters, does that inclue white spaces (such as new lines, spaces, tabs ect)?

And is it from this point on that only posts over 100 characters count or does it apply to past posts as well?

EDIT: nevermind the 2nd question. I just realised that if it were to include all past posts, my post count would be maybe at 300 :)

When you say characters, does that inclue white spaces (such as new lines, spaces, tabs ect)?

And is it from this point on that only posts over 100 characters count or does it apply to past posts as well?

EDIT: nevermind the 2nd question. I just realised that if it were to include all past posts, my post count would be maybe at 300 :)

Whitespace should not be included. While whitespace does count as message length in the Pager, it does not for posts.

Simple test: Try to reply with only spaces in a message.

Hehe, you reminded me to update the system so it doesn't count any whitespace/newline characters (the other Michael picked me up on this earlier in the evening). Probably would have forgotten otherwise. Will do it in a few minutes.

OK, should behave better now.

P.S. It doesn't apply to past posts, no.

Whitespace should not be included. While whitespace does count as message length in the Pager, it does not for posts.

I know they should not be, but things aren't always as they should be :)

and apparently they wern't.

You know, on occasion I may know what I'm talking about...

I know they should not be, but things aren't always as they should be ;)

and apparently they wern't.

You know, on occasion I may know what I'm talking about...

Ayup, and that's why I included the last sentence in my post.

Though if we're being picky, the software shouldn't let you reply with a message consisting solely of spaces. ;)

I tried replying once with just a quote, it wont let you do that either.

It says your message needs to be atleast... one (i think) character long.

Yeah, I think it strips BBCode from what you posted before counting the characters.

I don't personally think post-count is important - nothing hangs on it that affects a user's interaction with the site as far as I can see - correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems to affect the site staff else they wouldn't bother about it.

The 'objection' can only be that posts under 100char are trivial and not worth counting.

So my inclination is to avoid a <100char post unless absolutely necessary, because it's seen as trivial. There was a couple of submissions last eve that only really needed, "That's great, keep going like that." or sim. But I didn't post.

Is there any reason for showing the post count at all...since it is no longer an actual count? It no longer affects the user status?

That's true, as there are no more "ranks"....

Actually, that was the fun part of upping your post count. I remembered how excited I was when I got my 2nd (and later 3rd) pip ;)

I liked it when it showed the member number, can we get that back?

I don't personally think post-count is important - nothing hangs on it that affects a user's interaction with the site as far as I can see - correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems to affect the site staff else they wouldn't bother about it.

The 'objection' can only be that posts under 100char are trivial and not worth counting.

So my inclination is to avoid a <100char post unless absolutely necessary, because it's seen as trivial. There was a couple of submissions last eve that only really needed, "That's great, keep going like that." or sim. But I didn't post.

Is there any reason for showing the post count at all...since it is no longer an actual count? It no longer affects the user status?

If post count doesn't matter, why take away the <100 character rule?

The post count will not count unless the user has typed at least 70 words. This is about 350 characters spaces not included. We may raise this to 100 words, we will do some experimentation. The reason for this is to prevent "post spamming" and to encourage higher quality posts. There are one too many members in this forum who only post one line "low quality" posts, and these should not count towards activity. Another reason for this rule is so that we have a better idea of who truly contributes to the forums. I think we should eliminate post counts in the FFA forum as well.

The post count will not count unless the user has typed at least 70 words. This is about 350 characters spaces not included. We may raise this to 100 words, we will do some experimentation. The reason for this is to prevent "post spamming" and to encourage higher quality posts. There are one too many members in this forum who only post one line "low quality" posts, and these should not count towards activity. Another reason for this rule is so that we have a better idea of who truly contributes to the forums. I think we should eliminate post counts in the FFA forum as well.

Well if we're going to eliminate one word post's. What if a person is asked a question that only needs a 1 word answer?

Well if we're going to eliminate one word post's. What if a person is asked a question that only needs a 1 word answer?

This doesn't mean we are going to delete the posts. They just wont count towards your "post count." It's impossible to moderate every post, but 9.9 times out of 10, one word and one sentence posts should not be counted as a valid contribution.

HAHA, now it will be harder for the spammer n00bs to live. Oh wait hang on...

*thinking* *thinking* I'm still a n00b, well according to Hilary :sleeping:

The > 100 characters rule is in place to discourage members from spamming short messages primarily in an attempt to raise their post count. By introducing this rule, our motives weren't so much status micromanagement as spam prevention.

HAHA, now it will be harder for the spammer n00bs to live. Oh wait hang on...

*thinking* *thinking* I'm still a n00b, well according to Hilary

Hey, I was more specific than that. I said that compared to me you're still a n00b :w00t:

Anyways, If the

box doesn't count towards your 100 chars, does the same thing apply to the

 box?

Is there a way to inclue a word count tool into the advanced reply menu?

Should I just stfu?

Anyways, If the [noparse]

[/noparse] box doesn't count towards your 100 chars, does the same thing apply to the

 box?

Yeah, I think it strips BBCode from what you posted before counting the characters.

:w00t:

All BBCode. Quotes, code tags, the whole nine yards.

Is there a way to inclue a word count tool into the advanced reply menu?

You mean a javascript one, like with the pager? Probably, but I don't think it's necessary. It might encourage people to spam characters to meet the minimum requirement, for one. I'm basing that guess on the fact that users often seem fascinated with dynamic content. Remember the flood control countdown, for example? ;)

If post count doesn't matter, why take away the <100 character rule?

If the post count isn't accurate AND doesn't matter, why bother with it at all?

The > 100 characters rule is in place to discourage members from spamming short messages primarily in an attempt to raise their post count. By introducing this rule, our motives weren't so much status micromanagement as spam prevention.

The justification for raising the post count originally seemed to contribute to rank (q.v. up there somewhere - bob-stole-my-cookie) and achieving a higher ranking conferred some sort of status.

Since that's gone, there's no need for posts to count toward anything. Since the count doesn't reflect the true number of posts, it isn't a post count, just a count of posts over 100 words which...by some strange act of transmogrification, becomes a quality post. ....okay....

Anyway, I'm pleased to be informed - it will affect what I post - NOT FOR ANY REASON ABOUT a publicised post count.

Interesting politics.

Because despite it's uselessness it is an interesting feature.

__________________

It has a certain curio value. An abstract expressionist gesture. Nice!!!

PS, I tested what happens when you post <100 chars, (postcount not incremented), then edit it to >100 characters. The post count isn't incremented.