Thread Creation Amendment

[Indoor Living]

I can understand how this could possibly never work, but I'd been throwing the idea around in my head for a while, and while I know nothing around running a forum, it seems like a great idea on paper.

I think users on AP should only be able to create a thread only after attaining 1,000 posts (Maybe 500, if 1,000 is too steep). I just feel like, by adding this rule, the amount of redundant, unnecessary, arbitrary, irrelevant, and so on and so forth, threads would decrease drastically.

If this would never work, I totally understand. Just tossing this out there for possible contemplation. I feel like it would do more help than harm.

[eriatarka24]

250?

[yayitsjoe]

i think 250 is appropriate.

[Indoor Living]

I think 250 is a little lenient. I could deal with 500, possibly. People (hopefully) start to get the hang of this site around 500.

[eriatarka24]

Nah, I think that 500 is too much. I'd be pissed if I were a newbie. If they're not good by 250 posts, then they're outta here. lol

[Indoor Living]

I just think 5 is not a good amount. It should definitely be at least 250.

[BornUnderPunches]

500 doesn't seen that steep, 1000 does, especially for newbies (imo)

[Indoor Living]

I think 500 is fine. If I were Tate, I would accept 500. I don't think it's that ridiculous. We need some rules for this.

[kearn1tm]

While it would eliminate the monotonous "what's emo?" threads, it would severely hamper potentially engaging discussion from new posters who could possibly add intriguing threads. Not ever poster under the 500 mark is dense and oblivious to AP norms. Moreover, 500, 250, 1,000, etc. all seem to be arbitrarily suggested. What happens after 250? Who empirically gathered evidence suggesting most new posters discover how to be a contributing member of the forum at 250?

Upon signing up, I'd like an amended, updated list of rules/suggestions to be included. Reading them are mandatory before registration is completed.

[FueledByRock]

While it would eliminate the monotonous "what's emo?" threads, it would severely hamper potentially engaging discussion from new posters who could possibly add intriguing threads. Not ever poster under the 500 mark is dense and oblivious to AP norms. Moreover, 500, 250, 1,000, etc. all seem to be arbitrarily suggested. What happens after 250? Who empirically gathered evidence suggesting most new posters discover how to be a contributing member of the forum at 250?

Upon signing up, I'd like an amended, updated list of rules/suggestions to be included. Reading them are mandatory before registration is completed.
How can you make someone read something? I highly doubt the idiot creating a stupid thread would be the same person who reads all of the terms and conditions of a website. I think, if a person neglects to use the search function or simply makes a stupid thread, they should be prohibited from making threads until they make "x" more posts.

[kearn1tm]

How can you make someone read something?

When I apply for a student loan, I have to go through an online counseling process. I have to click on a PDF link before the "accept" button can be pressed. There's also a few quiz questions to ensure I've read the material.

Boom.

[FueledByRock]

When I apply for a student loan, I have to go through an online counseling process. I have to click on a PDF link before the "accept" button can be pressed. There's also a few quiz questions to ensure I've read the material.

Boom.
So you're suggesting a quiz about the terms and conditions? It seems a bit extreme.

[kearn1tm]

So you're suggesting a quiz about the terms and conditions? It seems a bit extreme.

Ideally, no, but the student loan quiz is relatively easy. It asks you questions using the same phrasing as the rules/suggestions in a multiple choice format. It's rather simple, really. However, I'd find placing the rules list on the page and not allowing the user to click the "accept" button for five minutes or so a better option. It doesn't guarentee the user reads it, but it's less imposing than a quiz. Regardless, the quiz option would be a less reductive option and wouldn't impose such rigid limits on conversation.

[FueledByRock]

Ideally, no, but the student loan quiz is relatively easy. It asks you questions using the same phrasing as the rules/suggestions in a multiple choice format. It's rather simple, really. However, I'd find placing the rules list on the page and not allowing the user to click the "accept" button for five minutes or so a better option. It doesn't guarentee the user reads it, but it's much more imposing than a quiz. Regardless, the quiz option would be a less reductive option and wouldn't impose such rigid limits on conversation.
I agree that the timed rules is a better solution. It just seems more reasonable than a quiz.

[kearn1tm]

I agree that the timed rules is a better solution. It just seems more reasonable than a quiz.

Agreed.

[Indoor Living]

While it would eliminate the monotonous "what's emo?" threads, it would severely hamper potentially engaging discussion from new posters who could possibly add intriguing threads. Not ever poster under the 500 mark is dense and oblivious to AP norms. Moreover, 500, 250, 1,000, etc. all seem to be arbitrarily suggested. What happens after 250? Who empirically gathered evidence suggesting most new posters discover how to be a contributing member of the forum at 250?

Upon signing up, I'd like an amended, updated list of rules/suggestions to be included. Reading them are mandatory before registration is completed.
Arbitrary, yes. I suggested 1,000 because that's the point in time where a user is bolded if they've been here for two years. Does it necessarily make them more worthwhile to the site, and less of a hinderance? No, not in any way. But if there were any way to test it, a person with 1,000 posts vs. someone with 75 posts would probably be more successful at adding discussion in an objective, helpful way, rather than being close-minded and subjective. This isn't the matter all the time, but I think you get what I'm pushing at.

[kyle is hk]

I can understand how this could possibly never work, but I'd been throwing the idea around in my head for a while, and while I know nothing around running a forum, it seems like a great idea on paper.

I think users on AP should only be able to create a thread only after attaining 1,000 posts (Maybe 500, if 1,000 is too steep). I just feel like, by adding this rule, the amount of redundant, unnecessary, arbitrary, irrelevant, and so on and so forth, threads would decrease drastically.

If this would never work, I totally understand. Just tossing this out there for possible contemplation. I feel like it would do more help than harm.


I think the post minimum should only be used as a spam deterrent- not used as a prevention of "redundant, unnecessary, arbitrary, irrelevant" threads. Sure, threads can get repetitive but discussions dont have to happen once and never again afterwards. You can't expect all users to be aware of whats been talked about and what hasn't over the course of APs recent history; nor have to study what's heresy and what's cliche.

And the # of posts a person has means so little. Some people have thousands of extra posts purely by spamming pointless threads like "What Are You Listening" or "End of the Artist Game" many times a day. I barely crack 1k posts and I've been heavily following a lot of threads for a year now. I just don't engage in stuff like "Which Band is Better Game!" that only serve as post boosting. I've personally watched people go from little-to-no-posts so over 1k posts in a matter of weeks and still be as dumb as they first started.

I'd say a good number is 50. Small enough that new people can post new threads and engage in the discussions they want to, large enough to be too much of a nuisance for people who just want to make an account, let out a blitz posts until they hit a minimum, and make some sort of promotion/idiotic thread.

A 500 / 1,000 post rule is a verrrry elitist type of rule IMHO. Would the quality of threads be better? Probably. But its a huge deterrent to new people.

[Indoor Living]

I think the post minimum should only be used as a spam deterrent- not used as a prevention of "redundant, unnecessary, arbitrary, irrelevant" threads. Sure, threads can get repetitive but discussions dont have to happen once and never again afterwards. You can't expect all users to be aware of whats been talked about and what hasn't over the course of APs recent history; nor have to study what's heresy and what's cliche.

And the # of posts a person has means so little. Some people have thousands of extra posts purely by spamming pointless threads like "What Are You Listening" or "End of the Artist Game" many times a day. I barely crack 1k posts and I've been heavily following a lot of threads for a year now. I just don't engage in stuff like "Which Band is Better Game!" that only serve as post boosting. I've personally watched people go from little-to-no-posts so over 1k posts in a matter of weeks and still be as dumb as they first started.

I'd say a good number is 50. Small enough that new people can post new threads and engage in the discussions they want to, large enough to be too much of a nuisance for people who just want to make an account, let out a blitz posts until they hit a minimum, and make some sort of promotion/idiotic thread.

A 500 / 1,000 post rule is a verrrry elitist type of rule IMHO. Would the quality of threads be better? Probably. But its a huge deterrent to new people.
Then in lieu of this rule, there needs to be something heavily (HEAVILY) promoting the search function. I think leaving the forums the way they are is only going to result in continuous creation of unnecessary (duplicate, rather?) threads.

[kyle is hk]

Then in lieu of this rule, there needs to be something heavily (HEAVILY) promoting the search function. I think leaving the forums the way they are is only going to result in continuous creation of unnecessary (duplicate, rather?) threads.

If youre just talking about something like having two Modest Mouse (Official Threads) I think the best way to deter that is maybe when you go to create a new thread have a little disclaimer at the top like "Before posting, try using the search function to see if someone's already made a thread on your topic" with a search bar next to it. (Not something that forces you to search before every new thread creating, just a little tip at the top of the screen or something)

[yayitsjoe]

When I apply for a student loan, I have to go through an online counseling process. I have to click on a PDF link before the "accept" button can be pressed. There's also a few quiz questions to ensure I've read the material.

Boom.

did this today. took forever.

[kearn1tm]

did this today. took forever.

It took me approximately fifteen minutes or so.

[yayitsjoe]

It took me approximately fifteen minutes or so.

maybe it felt like forever. :shrug:

[kearn1tm]

maybe it felt like forever. :shrug:

I can't argue with that.

[nicwtor]

I think 250 may be a little steep but maybe that's just because I lurked for a while and threw in my opinion wherever I saw it necessary (or unnecessary depending on your views.) During the last few months, I've finally started to post more and I think I'm around 490 posts. I think instead of having a number of post rule, it should instead be a length rule such as once you've been here two weeks, you can make a thread.

That way, people would be able to creep for two weeks and understand how this site works. Plus I can't think of many trolls who would sign up, then wait two weeks to make some stupid thread.

My plan may not work though since there have been some people posting stupid threads with a low post count that joined a year ago and just started posting now.

[Indoor Living]

I think 250 may be a little steep but maybe that's just because I lurked for a while and threw in my opinion wherever I saw it necessary (or unnecessary depending on your views.) During the last few months, I've finally started to post more and I think I'm around 490 posts. I think instead of having a number of post rule, it should instead be a length rule such as once you've been here two weeks, you can make a thread.

That way, people would be able to creep for two weeks and understand how this site works. Plus I can't think of many trolls who would sign up, then wait two weeks to make some stupid thread.

My plan may not work though since there have been some people posting stupid threads with a low post count that joined a year ago and just started posting now.
This is good too. Maybe there's a way to mix them both.

[flks511]

What about users who want to review albums?

[Sean Rizzo]

I think 250 may be a little steep but maybe that's just because I lurked for a while and threw in my opinion wherever I saw it necessary (or unnecessary depending on your views.) During the last few months, I've finally started to post more and I think I'm around 490 posts. I think instead of having a number of post rule, it should instead be a length rule such as once you've been here two weeks, you can make a thread.

That way, people would be able to creep for two weeks and understand how this site works. Plus I can't think of many trolls who would sign up, then wait two weeks to make some stupid thread.

My plan may not work though since there have been some people posting stupid threads with a low post count that joined a year ago and just started posting now.
This idea wins my vote. I think this plus increasing the post count to 50 would do the trick.

Anything higher than 50 is just too much. A rule like what was suggested in the OP would kill a good portion of the site by discouraging people from joining. I've made a few good threads while I was here well before I had 1,000 posts, or even 500.

[Sean Rizzo]

Then in lieu of this rule, there needs to be something heavily (HEAVILY) promoting the search function. I think leaving the forums the way they are is only going to result in continuous creation of unnecessary (duplicate, rather?) threads.
I've seen most threads like that get deleted.

Also, I think AP would have more stringent rules if it needed them. The leniency we enjoy is probably because tate has some epic servers. haha.

[kyle is hk]

Its fine the way it is really. If you see a thread thats repetitive and stupid, its pretty easy to not click on it.

[Indoor Living]

Yeah, that's fine if it happened once a week.

[DanPiazza]

It's taken me a while to get where I am and I'm not even at 500. I think 300 would be a good number.

[Star Slight]

I think a timed rules/quiz at the end is a little too serious for the place where Music Mends Broken Hearts.
I guess 250 would be a good limit, 500 takes a while to get to and will lead to a lot of dumbasses commenting on every thread/news post with one word answers just to bump their post count.
The stupids are going to come out either way. Xtheaudition had a shitload of posts, and he still made dumb fucking threads.

As for the intelligent posters under 250, I feel that there are a good amount of topics for them to have a serious discussion about music in.

[Scrandon]

Useless thread about useless threads, cool.

[Sean Rizzo]

Useless thread about useless threads, cool.
Useless post inside useless thread.

In before useless reply to useless post in useless thread.

What now? =P

[Indoor Living]

It's taken me a while to get where I am and I'm not even at 500. I think 300 would be a good number.

But you're gonna be grandfathered in, so no worries! ;-)

I think a timed rules/quiz at the end is a little too serious for the place where Music Mends Broken Hearts.
I guess 250 would be a good limit, 500 takes a while to get to and will lead to a lot of dumbasses commenting on every thread/news post with one word answers just to bump their post count.
The stupids are going to come out either way. Xtheaudition had a shitload of posts, and he still made dumb fucking threads.

As for the intelligent posters under 250, I feel that there are a good amount of topics for them to have a serious discussion about music in.

Totally. I like that you're on board. What are your views on this ever getting looked at by staff?

Useless thread about useless threads, cool.

Are you kidding? Come on, man.

[Star Slight]

Totally. I like that you're on board. What are your views on this ever getting looked at by staff?


I'm sure some of the regular staff posters will poke their heads in here and give their views.
But like I said, we're on Absolute Punk. As much as we love it, its not like this is some elite site where everything posted is of the utmost importance. And I totally understand where you're coming from and I agree that there are a fuckload of the same shitty threads popping up once a month, but I think that a lot of the staff would be weary about this limit.

Iunno, worth a shot.

EDIT:
Yeah, so I guess the 250 thing just flew out the window.
http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1810832

[Scrandon]

It's just a stupid idea, and it's been talked about many times.

I've seen some pretty good threads from people with less than 10 posts. I have never made a thread with over 1k. There's really no correlation between postcount and how good a thread will be.

[Star Slight]

It's just a stupid idea, and it's been talked about many times.

I've seen some pretty good threads from people with less than 10 posts. I have never made a thread with over 1k. There's really no correlation between postcount and how good a thread will be.

Don't you need 15 posts to make a thread?

[Scrandon]

Don't you need 15 posts to make a thread?

I don't know, the point is that it could be any arbitrarily low number.

[Scrandon]

How about a prompt comes up that forces you to use the search function before you are able to create a thread. If a thread is there, they should still get the option of making a new thread, but it will cut down on unintentionally repeated threads.

But seriously, screw the postcount thing.

[Indoor Living]

I'm sure some of the regular staff posters will poke their heads in here and give their views.
But like I said, we're on Absolute Punk. As much as we love it, its not like this is some elite site where everything posted is of the utmost importance. And I totally understand where you're coming from and I agree that there are a fuckload of the same shitty threads popping up once a month, but I think that a lot of the staff would be weary about this limit.

Iunno, worth a shot.

EDIT:
Yeah, so I guess the 250 thing just flew out the window.
http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1810832

Yeah, it's gonna happen no matter what, man. It's gonna be arbitrary no matter what the number is, but it's gotta be higher than 10 or 15.

It's just a stupid idea, and it's been talked about many times.

I've seen some pretty good threads from people with less than 10 posts. I have never made a thread with over 1k. There's really no correlation between postcount and how good a thread will be.

No, there's no causation between postcount and thread relevance. There's definitely a correlation. It may not be every single time, but at least 80% of the time, the unnecessary/duplicate thread is going to come from a person with <100 posts then >500.

[Scrandon]

No, there's no causation between postcount and thread relevance. There's definitely a correlation. It may not be every single time, but at least 80% of the time, the unnecessary/duplicate thread is going to come from a person with <100 posts then >500.
I know the difference between correlation and causation, thanks.

When referring to duplicate threads, yes you're right. I was talking about how good a thread would be, which means that we will be sacrificing some good threads that would have been coming from new posters in the meantime.

[Indoor Living]

I know the difference between correlation and causation, thanks.

When referring to duplicate threads, yes you're right. I was talking about how good a thread would be, which means that we will be sacrificing some good threads that would have been coming from new posters in the meantime.
Well, there still is. More often than not (but not always, yeah), the 'good' discussion-starting thread will be started, etc. etc., blah blah blah. You get where I'm headed with this.

[Star Slight]

To be honest, I think it comes down to a judgement call by the mods. If they feel that a thread is particularly bad, then they will close it. If not, they'll let it continue.
The post count is just too tricky of a thing to decide, although I do agree that there is a correlation the majority of the time.

[Indoor Living]

To be honest, I think it comes down to a judgement call by the mods. If they feel that a thread is particularly bad, then they will close it. If not, they'll let it continue.
The post count is just too tricky of a thing to decide, although I do agree that there is a correlation the majority of the time.
Yeah, it definitely is very tough to judge, since there is no hard evidence to prove it in either direction.

[jaxxawr]

the number of useless and annoying threads might go down, but don't you think the number of useless and annoying posts would skyrocket in an attempt to reach that all important benchmark?

[HometownHero]

10k

[Indoor Living]

10k
I dig it. You went there, and I dig it.

[BornUnderPunches]

10k
only right after I hit 10k

[Indoor Living]

It's as if right after I posted this thread, the threads created have been ten times dumber.

[Star Slight]

I like keeping my post count low. It makes me look distinguished.
So I get an honorary privilege

[Indoor Living]

I like keeping my post count low. It makes me look distinguished.
So I get an honorary privilege
You just have a life during the summer, I bet.

[BornUnderPunches]

You just have a life during the summer, I bet.
what's a "life"?

[Indoor Living]

what's a "life"?
It's like...I don't know.

[BornUnderPunches]

It's like...I don't know.
Is it like the same as a "dog"?

[Indoor Living]

Is it like the same as a "dog"?
Less hair, though, I think.

[BornUnderPunches]

Less hair, though, I think.
found it!

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images17/AmericanHairlessTerrierHorizonAHTs. JPG

hello Life

[HometownHero]

I wish I had a life.

[Indoor Living]

I wish I had a life.
Oh, whatever. You work and go to school now. Loser.

[HometownHero]

Oh, whatever. You work and go to school now. Loser.

Yeah and it sucks balls. The money however is lovely.

[Indoor Living]

Yeah and it sucks balls. The money however is lovely.
Do you bathe in it?

[HometownHero]

Do you bathe in it?

Mostly just wipe my ass with it.

[Indoor Living]

Mostly just wipe my ass with it.
I'm catching your ass in post count. Can't wait to brag about something so comical.

[HometownHero]

I'm catching your ass in post count. Can't wait to brag about something so comical.

I haven't had internet for a few days. I am at my old house using it right now but don't get the net at the new place until Tuesday, so I cant post much :-(

[Indoor Living]

I haven't had internet for a few days. I am at my old house using it right now but don't get the net at the new place until Tuesday, so I cant post much :-(
New place? You living on your own now?

[HometownHero]

New place? You living on your own now?

Nah my family moved. I was on my own before but I just moved back and we moved.

[Indoor Living]

Nah my family moved. I was on my own before but I just moved back and we moved.
Oh, yeah, that's right. I think I knew that, actually. You told me that before, I'm pretty sure.

[HometownHero]

Oh, yeah, that's right. I think I knew that, actually. You told me that before, I'm pretty sure.

I believe I did. Living at home again sucks big hairy b-hole.

[BornUnderPunches]

Remember when this thread was on-topic?

[HometownHero]

Remember when this thread was on-topic?

Remember when you didn't like men?

[BornUnderPunches]

Remember when you didn't like men?
...no

[Anton Djamoos]

People would spam to get to that limit.

[Indoor Living]

People would spam to get to that limit.
Do you think there is any way possible to change it at all? Maybe make it a timed limit?

[Anton Djamoos]

Do you think there is any way possible to change it at all? Maybe make it a timed limit?
It would be completely unfair to do something like that, I think. Bad user experience.

[Indoor Living]

It would be completely unfair to do something like that, I think. Bad user experience.
Yeah, you're probably right. I went in with good intentions, nothing more I can do.

[Anton Djamoos]

Yeah, you're probably right. I went in with good intentions, nothing more I can do.
Nah, I know. It's something we've thought about before and given extensive thought, but it's just one of those things that would fundamentally alter how the site works. It's not broken and bad thread creation helps ne wpeople realize how the community works quickly. Plus, they do offer a good laugh sometimes, if we want to think optimistically.

[Dystroxia]

found it!

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images17/AmericanHairlessTerrierHorizonAHTs. JPG

hello Life

hahahaha