0
Andy9o8

Limit Consecutive Posts in a Thread?

Recommended Posts

I suggest that the number of consecutive posts a person may make in a thread be limited to a reasonable number. The number would be determined by whatever means Sangiro thinks appropriate - his own judgment; his internal poll of moderators; the Zodiac, whatever.

To be clear, I am not suggesting a maximum total number of posts a person may post in any thread - that would still remain unlimited, as it currently is - just a limit on any one person's consecutive posts, i.e., before another person's post has been posted.

I offer this as a reasonable quality-of-site proposal. And no, it's not a proverbial "solution in search of a problem".

My own suggestion would be 4 consecutive posts. But realizing that others may disagree (while still respecting that this is Sangiro's site and he makes the rules), I've made this a poll.

I've no idea whether this is technically feasible, or practical. If it is not, then this poll will, I hope, still serve a useful purpose.

Thanks for your attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you perceive this as a problem?

If someone is taking a lot of heat from many different people, he needs to be able to respond to each of those people. That might require more than four messages. I don't see the problem with this.

If you feel that someone is "dominating" the conversation, just skip over their posts when reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why do you perceive this as a problem?

If someone is taking a lot of heat from many different people, he needs to be able to respond to each of those people. That might require more than four messages. I don't see the problem with this.

If you feel that someone is "dominating" the conversation, just skip over their posts when reading.



Why can't one just respond to multiple people in one post?
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why can't one just respond to multiple people in one post?



You could, but that messes up the threading, i.e. you can just click "in reply to" in order to see the original post to find the context of what is being talked about. And it takes extra work to insert the name and quotes of each person to whom you are replying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does bug me, but it does have a good side in that it's easy to just scroll past (and ignore) those particular posts.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If somebody posts a message, but has AHDH or something and remembers more info to add, then posts that, and then again remembers something else to add, then posts again, well that's one thing.

If somebody's trying to rack up post numbers in a hurry like say one word per post in the same thread, then that might be a waste of bandwidth. :P

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So your saying that people like me who start an on going thread like "KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AT FEDERAL FUNDED AIRPORTS" A thread that is on going because of 1. the FAA moves slowly and we're awaiting their findings in a real airport access case currently under way. 2. the thread covers a vast amount of info, that in fact has been changed and updated by the FAA after the first post was made. 3. you will see additional info posted once the letters and info from the FAA and USPA is mailed out and can be made public.

Had it been limited to 4 posts total there is no way all the need info could be posted. Also (as said) I'm awaiting currently additional findings from the FAA to add to that thread in the very near future. I have been personally called via the phone from USPA HQ in regards to that thread, I was told not only was it very well done and provide a huge amount of info that every USPA member should know, understand and care about, and one HQ person was happy to see the issue addressed here by someone outside of USPA in a factual manner.

Do we need 2000 post by a nut case named Mark, NO but the mods already have tools to deal with those types of posters.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So your saying that people like me who start an on going thread like "KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AT FEDERAL FUNDED AIRPORTS" .....
...... Had it been limited to 4 posts total .....



Sorry, but you haven't read carefully. I specifically said that this was not a proposal to limit total numbers of posts by a person in a thread, only consecutive ones. I'd have no complaints at all about, for example, the total number of posts you made in that thread you mention. Rather, I'm referring to certain people who make it a semi-constant habit of laying down 5, 6, 7 consecutive posts in a thread, one after another after another, after.. well, you know. To me, it's like weeds choking off everything else around it. I'm not the only one to openly complain about it; but since it's still happening, I thought I'd notch-up the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So your saying that people like me who start an on going thread like "KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AT FEDERAL FUNDED AIRPORTS" .....
...... Had it been limited to 4 posts total .....



Sorry, but you haven't read carefully. I specifically said that this was not a proposal to limit total numbers of posts by a person in a thread, only consecutive ones. I'd have no complaints at all about, for example, the total number of posts you made in that thread you mention. Rather, I'm referring to certain people who make it a semi-constant habit of laying down 5, 6, 7 consecutive posts in a thread, one after another after another, after.. well, you know. To me, it's like weeds choking off everything else around it. I'm not the only one to openly complain about it; but since it's still happening, I thought I'd notch-up the issue.



Thinking about any number x that could be chosen as the consecutive post limit, what happens if there is an inactive thread where the last x posts were all from the same person, but posted over a relatively long period of time?

Should the count of consecutive posts be reset periodically? Once a day? Once an hour?

I understand, in principle, the problem you describe, but I don't want to inhibit legitimate use.

Doing this right might be more difficult than we initially imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm bumping this because 6 months after the OP and resulting discussion, it's still happening unabated, and we all know where it's coming from. Some threads get practically un-readable because of it. As I said above, it's a quality-of-site issue. Would be nice if somebody was willing to step up to the plate. I don't think what I'm proposing is all that unreasonable. If any administrator and/or moderator would like to weigh in, I'm all ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a bad idea, personally I wouldn't mind seeing a cut-off limit at 3 consecutive posts. But with that said, I'm not sure about the other threads, but from browsing Bonfire and SC a lot, I've only ever seen one or two cases where this has occurred. And as far as I know there is no simple field where an admin can change the number of allowed consecutive posts, though I will check. So we'd need to get one of the tech guys to modify the actual forum manually, and before that it would make sense to see how big of a problem it is.

It is definitely annoying to have it happen, but is it a common problem too. Or is it only from a select few individuals, if the latter- having a moderator personally send them a warning via PM telling them to post more responsibly may be a better solution?

I know sometimes people have a habit of replying to one post, then wanting to reply to another and then to another, all addressing different points. But as you suggest, this is an annoyance, and I urge them to rather use NOTEPAD and copy/paste the posts they want to address there. Then there is no reason to go on a post-spree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is definitely annoying to have it happen, but is it a common problem too. Or is it only from a select few individuals, if the latter- having a moderator personally send them a warning via PM telling them to post more responsibly may be a better solution?



It's the latter; and yes, it's mainly "from a select [few] individual[s)" (read: one chronic offender, usually in SC). Nevertheless, it is so chronic that, IMO, it's worthy of some attention.

BTW, PMs only work if the person has his PMs turned on; some people keep it off.

I had hoped that by starting this thread a couple months ago it might elicit some voluntary restraint from "the select individual(s)", but it's now obvious that that just isn't going to happen.


Quote

I know sometimes people have a habit of replying to one post, then wanting to reply to another and then to another, all addressing different points. But as you suggest, this is an annoyance, and I urge them to rather use NOTEPAD and copy/paste the posts they want to address there. Then there is no reason to go on a post-spree.



Agreed, and that's been urged upon "the select individual(s)" before, but the urgings have been ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know sometimes people have a habit of replying to one post, then wanting to reply to another and then to another, all addressing different points. But as you suggest, this is an annoyance, and I urge them to rather use NOTEPAD and copy/paste the posts they want to address there. Then there is no reason to go on a post-spree.



What's the difference between one long post that responds to five people, and five short posts that respond to the same five people?

I don't see what some people are getting so worked-up about.

If you haven't visited a thread in a while, and need to respond to multiple posts, then that's what you do. That's the way this forum is designed to work, so that the context is back-linked for reference. If you go combining multiple responses in one message, then the back-links are no longer there.

If you don't like reading someone's posts, just scroll past them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand the points you make, John; I understood them before I started the thread, and before I bumped it recently. And I'm trying to take a reasonable view of this. The best I can say is that if I didn't think it was enough of a problem, I wouldn't have started, or bumped, the thread. But recognizing your points from the outset, that's why I started the thread as a poll: to get a reality check from my fellow members. Thus far, about 2/3 of the poll responders agree with my proposal. For whatever it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0