Display user post count?

On June 14 2010 21:31 snpnx wrote:
Let it stay as it is, if someone spams for more posts, ban him,
otherwise it's still a good thing to put a bit more weight into answers from users with ridiculous high post counts. As the commandments say, you should respect your elders.

On June 14 2010 21:44 meegrean wrote:
Posts + Average post per week as well would probably better insight about user.

On June 14 2010 21:39 Eatme wrote:
Postcount in profile and joindate where the postcount is. If not keep it as it is now.

On June 14 2010 22:17 NuKedUFirst wrote:
Post count and date joined, Posts:500 Date: 08/07/07 or something like that would be excellent ^_^

On June 14 2010 22:22 KasPra wrote:
If you take the post count down people will post less and there will be a lot less useless posts imo, ive seen that action taken in a lot of forums and it usually works quite well. I voted i dont care though cause i never visit the sc2 forums.

On June 14 2010 22:32 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
I choosed "keep it as it is" but when I thought about it, I'd really like to see the "joined tl.net date" instead of post count. Either one or both!

On June 14 2010 22:41 diggurd wrote:
if this is a matter of veterans and oldschoolness join date should replace post count.

On June 14 2010 22:24 wishbones wrote:
Post counts are awesome I always check a users post count before posting some of my responses to their posts. Lol, and then when I go and click user profile If they joined before me, with a post count of 2 I definitely change my post. Simply put, the longer a member has been here, the more leisure they have over me.

On June 14 2010 22:24 wishbones wrote:
Post counts are awesome I always check a users post count before posting some of my responses to their posts. Lol, and then when I go and click user profile If they joined before me, with a post count of 2 I definitely change my post. Simply put, the longer a member has been here, the more leisure they have over me.

On June 14 2010 23:03 Qwertify wrote:
Long Time Member + Large Post count = Veteran (<- this is the only logical thing to conclude)
Long Time Member + Small Post count = Lurker
Short Time Member + Large Post count = Spammer
Short Time Member + Small Post count = Newbie

On June 14 2010 23:03 Qwertify wrote:
Yeah, keep as is. I actually look at post count before I see the name. In a LR I know who said what by their post count. If it is a new number, like 788, and no one I've seen recently has that much in the LR, then I will scan the name in conjunction with the message to see if what they say has any value.

It is a bit coarse and somewhat unscrupulous, but I don't think users have oodles of time to constantly check join dates and other info.

EDIT: Join Date does not equal (~=) time spent on the forums. I can have joined six years ago, have rediscovered SC, and only now have started posting.

I think people just have to use a combination of info, including the posts themselves, previous posts, join date, post count, posts this week, etc.

In short, you are trading one kind of hole of information for another.

Besides. just because someone created an account on TL.net recently, does not mean they are a noob to the scene. Again, on the opposite end, just because someone joined a few years back does not make them an automatic veteran.

Long Time Member + Large Post count = Veteran (<- this is the only logical thing to conclude)
Long Time Member + Small Post count = ???
Short Time Member + Large Post count = ???
Short Time Member + Small Post count = ???

EDIT: Join Date does not equal (~=) time spent on the forums. I can have joined six years ago, have rediscovered SC, and only now have started posting.

On June 14 2010 21:46 Kyo Yuy wrote:
A low post count does not imply a new member. I just don't post that much because I don't have that much that I want to say.

On June 14 2010 23:45 Hyde wrote:
I don't know, I voted too quickly before thinking about it. I don't think erasing post count will eradicate spamming, people will always write lol or one liners no matter what anyway. If you do remove them then people will most likely turn to icons as some indication. It'll be no different since worker icon is the same thing as low post count. Then people will spam again to change their icon.

And besides, people who frequent this site already know who the spammers are and who the great posters are already. People who continuously disrespect this forum/have horrible posting habits are removed in the long run so I don't think we really need to change anything, but I voted remove post count (before thinking properly).

On June 15 2010 01:23 travis wrote:
I don't see the point of removing it? Is it to fight spam? You think those idiots won't make shitty posts for reasons other than post count as well?

On June 14 2010 21:24 arew wrote:
Keep postcount as it is!

On June 15 2010 02:08 Misrah wrote:
Having Join date would be nice would take that in place of post count. meeple is a great example of a post spammer... really join date i think is the best way to gauge users

On June 14 2010 21:41 ---Disco--- wrote:
People discriminate based on post count

On June 14 2010 21:18 shalafi wrote:
Sincerely, the join date is more useful to classify people. I see myself looking at join dates all the time. "This HAS to be a post sc2 user"->check->95% of the times I'm right.

But some of the best users only have a few of posts (MDT anyone?), while some posters made over 1000 since the start of the beta.


So about the post count... I don't care.

On June 15 2010 03:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It would be horribly hard for newcomers to know who is who and who you should remember etc etc etc without the post count.

Most people who arrive here don't know who Idra or Incontrol are. So for a noob, being able to make the difference between someone who has 36 post and someone who has 11 000 is very important.

Removing it would be plain silly.

On June 15 2010 05:05 Chairman Ray wrote:
I want everyone to know how big a spammer I am!

On June 15 2010 00:39 Trozz wrote:
I'd keep the post count.
Is this to reduce spam threads?
like "1000th post!"

On June 15 2010 00:32 GreEny K wrote:
I think a join date should be applied to the user banner as well, I usually post with more respect to the older users, unless their posts are garbage and most of them are "LOL" "THAT WAS SWEET" "OMG" or my personal favorite "^" (to agree with the previous poster). Anyway, join dates with post counts would be cool. On a side note, since sc2 beta came out and the influx of new members I can definitely notice the difference in posts. You can tell when a post is made by a post beta member or by an old school BW player.

On June 15 2010 05:52 Evoke wrote:
Add a little clickable star rating feature near the post count, so that people can rate other people's posts. Whoever gets x 5-rated posts gets +1 in whatever 'count of quality'..

Later, announce facebook integration of TL, for great justice.

On June 15 2010 01:42 Red_Storm wrote:


Its to stop the high post count circle jerk that goes on if people less than 100 posts make a comment. If you guys want to compete with this new website husky/hd just opened up you are gonna have to be a bit more welcoming to people who aren't 'old vets'.

Posts should be judged on the content of the post, not the guy who posts it.

On June 15 2010 05:57 NeV wrote:


This. I don't understand how you can't get it. It seems absolutely fair to me

On June 14 2010 21:18 shalafi wrote:

So about the post count... I don't care.

Just no.

When you see someone like Incontrol with 10K post, you know that probably he knows more about this website and sc in general than the Joe Noob and his 34 posts. And the point is, Tom Noob doesn't know either Joe Noob and Incontrol. So there is the post count to make the difference.

It's perfectly normal that people have an idea of how much someone they talk with has brought to this website.

I know the name of most 5K+ post user, because when I see a 5K+ post user, I read his name twice. I wouldn't know anybody except the mods without the post counts.

On June 15 2010 06:31 NeV wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
I partly agree with your point, but i repeat: this system would be ideal if everyone was wise enough not to judge the comments ONLY by the post count. Unfortunately that's not the case, and you can
see it reading this thread. A lot of the people just ignore the comments from newcomers. Well, that's not fair and doesn't induce new users to give their contribute, and for example it's the reason why I have only 80 posts even if I've been on this site for 4 years: posting here is frustrating cause basically nobody cares if you haven't a high post count.

On June 15 2010 07:38 Skillz_Man wrote:
I like it how it is, but what do you guys think about words/post? I think that could tell quality pretty well and it would encourage people to not yes say useless stuff like "GO Flash"... I don't know what you guys think but I like that idea. And for joined TL date, I was a lurker for a long time even though I had an account.

On June 15 2010 08:54 Mastermind wrote:
Keep it please. Post count is an important tool you can use to help judge someone's post. When I see someone with a low post count giving questionable advice in a strategy thread I know to just ignore it because they are a noob. Also, when someone gets to 5000 posts and they arent banned, it lets you know that the person's input is probably decent, although thats not always the case. Post count is a helpful guide if used properly.

On June 15 2010 08:57 enzym wrote:

just in case you are not trolling and this is a serious reply i want to remind you that 5000-posts-people started out with 0 posts, too. do you believe that their posts were worth less that time than they are now?

On June 15 2010 09:46 shimpoe wrote:
Actually one of the biggest reasons why this forum turns me off so much is from seeing the rampant elitism and arrogance of a lot of the users, solely based off of people's post count. For someone like me, I've followed the proleague scene for years, have owned and played starcraft since before Broodwar was even out, and lurked the forums for a very long time before ever actually making a post/account. I keep coming back to the forum because there is a lot of quality content on these boards, but at times it feels like the elitism and overall arrogance overshadows that, and a lot of that revolves around bigotry over trivial things like someone's post count.

Lots of constructive discussions end up being unvalidated because of some people's post count. Obviously, the moderators intervene when it's a large problem, but I still feel like it's something that happens more often on these forums than any other forum I've ever been on (possibly due to the competitive level of an RTS game like Starcraft? Not 100% sure on the reason).

It just rubs me the wrong way when discussions are unvalidated based off of the person's post count, rather than the quality of their content. I often wonder sometimes to myself, I bet if Flash were to come on tl.net and make an account and post about strategy, he'd get flamed for his post count, and that's a sad truth on occasion here. However it's not all hopeless to me, I've seen moderators do great job of handling things like that when it gets too out of hand, but it still rears it's ugly head quite a lot. Either way I'll still keep coming back and following along the great topics provided here on these forums, but it's disheartening to say the least when I come across elitism on these boards, and it certainly discourages a number of people from participating on these forums. Although it's worth pointing out, I don't believe the flaw is in the post count being displayed, but actually in the person's interpretation of that number.





Edit: Sloppily added in paragraph breaks to make readability increase by approximately 4000%

On June 15 2010 12:55 Jibba wrote:
I can't recall many of examples of people "prejudging" each other based on post number. I guess I might biased on whether they have a pro team selected (a quick way to judge if they followed BW) or when their join date is, but it usually doesn't change my reaction to them. If they say something retarded, then I'll just check their post history to see if they're like 60% SC2 forum, 40% Kpop thread.

On the other hand, I don't really see a reason to keep them either. I still like getting different icons, though. :x And the big 10k/20k posts. I've got no problem with elitism though.

On June 15 2010 11:50 Chill wrote:

Can you cite some examples?

On June 15 2010 10:11 Athos wrote:
The exclusion of information is never a good idea in my eyes.

When I read threads in my head, my brain prioritiezes information this manner.

Good players: Lz, ret, nony
Adminstrators: the reds
Moderators: the blues
High post count
Short post count

On June 15 2010 13:20 Redmark wrote:
I would think that a better question to ask is 'is there a reason to keep post count?' instead of the negative version - and I don't think there really is.
Frankly, judging the value of posts by post count (or skimming or scanning or whatever you want to call it) is stupid. It just means that you aren't reading all the posts. You should be able to tell whether a post is good or bad immediately, just by the content of the post. If you need to know how many posts a user has made to decide whether a post is good or not, you're probably not familiar enough with the subject matter for it to matter anyway.

On June 15 2010 13:42 ilbh wrote:
I voted to keep as it is.

I collected data from the last 4 pages of the automated ban list thread, here are the results:

banned people with 2000 to 20000 posts = 5
banned people with 1000 to 2000 posts = 4
banned people with 500 to 1000 posts = 5
banned people with 1 to 500 posts = 52

so, from a user with a lower number of posts you have a higher chance of getting an awful post.

ofc that if we want reliable results from 500+ posters, we need way more data, like 100 pages. not viable for someone without database access...

it is not elitism, its pure math.

On June 15 2010 05:42 GreEny K wrote:





Like I said.

On June 15 2010 06:31 NeV wrote:


I partly agree with your point, but i repeat: this system would be ideal if everyone was wise enough not to judge the comments ONLY by the post count. Unfortunately that's not the case, and you can
see it reading this thread. A lot of the people just ignore the comments from newcomers. Well, that's not fair and doesn't induce new users to give their contribute, and for example it's the reason why I have only 80 posts even if I've been on this site for 4 years: posting here is frustrating cause basically nobody cares if you haven't a high post count.

On June 15 2010 14:27 Trang wrote:


Pure math? This isn't pure maths, it's a bunch of statistics pulled from ad hoc forum data. Nothing pure maths about that. You pointed out the correlation, sure, but you neglected to consider that correlation does not amount to causation. It's true that people with lower post counts probably do post more ban-worthy stuff, but maybe not to the degree that you seem to be trying to say by pulling out those numbers. Did you ever consider that maybe people with a lower post count are accorded less leniency? I see high post count people getting away with poor one-liners like "this" and "qft" or "lol" all the time.

On June 15 2010 22:16 Helios.Star wrote:


So as a long time member you think its alright to have a one word response after a quote? Trying to pad the post count are we? But I guess I'm a bigger bane on the community, and more of a noob, by being only registered a short time and having a much much lower post count. Like its been said already, time registered does not translate into time spent playing bw or time spent lurking on the site, its just another way for long time members to flex their superiority muscles over members who haven't been registered as long. I can remember coming here in 2005 for bw replays but I only registered a couple months ago. Also, I say get rid of post count completely. The quote above is a perfect example why.

On June 15 2010 13:06 Chill wrote:

Yea, I really think it's just some phantom force people feel without it actually existing. I've never seen someone talk down to someone based on post count.

On June 15 2010 22:50 StarStruck wrote:


It's an unconscious decision. Why would anyone want to show all their cards before the hand is done?

On June 16 2010 00:15 Executioner.zealot wrote:
Dump the post count. A few admins have been making bad decision lately on good post based souly on users low post count. Or keep it up and get transfer out the bad admins.

On June 14 2010 21:18 shalafi wrote:
Sincerely, the join date is more useful to classify people. I see myself looking at join dates all the time. "This HAS to be a post sc2 user"->check->95% of the times I'm right.

But some of the best users only have a few of posts (MDT anyone?), while some posters made over 1000 since the start of the beta.


So about the post count... I don't care.

On June 16 2010 02:15 CultureMisfits wrote:
post count and the join year should both be posted

On June 16 2010 00:19 Chill wrote:

Can you cite examples? You realize we can see your post count, frequency, placement, join date, akas and tons of other stats in your user info, right? I'm not sure how you are inferring that any action is based on post count. Further, if we removed it, everyone would still be able to see it in your profile.

On June 16 2010 04:39 oo_xerox wrote:
And for the people asking the inscription date, thats the same thing, if the thing TL.net is trying to avoid is the elitism and missjudging, then you guys are just changing the factors, but we all know since 3rd grade that it doesnt change the result.
"PvT imba"
"ROFL a 2010 member, so typical"

See? same thing

On June 16 2010 05:13 HeadhunteR wrote:
its not being elitist its trying to have a coherent and good forum.. usually newcomers dont understand everything on tl and they tend to make bad mistakes, ask dumb questions. I think that a little discrimination is good for the forums it helps create some kind of respect..the join date idea is very good idea..
other forums discriminate harder.. for example they say you are a new full user instead of a full user which means (for the forums) you joined when the forums were more well known..

On June 16 2010 09:09 Gamjadori wrote:
Up with unit portraits! Down with post count!

On June 16 2010 07:51 Fontong wrote:
Should be like this:

Post Count | Join Date | Total Ban Duration | Main Forum

That way we get things like this:

54 | April 2010 | 10 days | Starcraft 2

On June 15 2010 22:16 Helios.Star wrote:


So as a long time member you think its alright to have a one word response after a quote? Trying to pad the post count are we? But I guess I'm a bigger bane on the community, and more of a noob, by being only registered a short time and having a much much lower post count. Like its been said already, time registered does not translate into time spent playing bw or time spent lurking on the site, its just another way for long time members to flex their superiority muscles over members who haven't been registered as long. I can remember coming here in 2005 for bw replays but I only registered a couple months ago. Also, I say get rid of post count completely. The quote above is a perfect example why.

On June 16 2010 05:13 HeadhunteR wrote:
its not being elitist its trying to have a coherent and good forum.. usually newcomers dont understand everything on tl and they tend to make bad mistakes, ask dumb questions. I think that a little discrimination is good for the forums it helps create some kind of respect..the join date idea is very good idea..
other forums discriminate harder.. for example they say you are a new full user instead of a full user which means (for the forums) you joined when the forums were more well known..

On June 16 2010 05:46 shimpoe wrote:

Words cannot express how true this is. Changing it from one thing to another doesn't actually fix the problem, it just rewords it.

Just the notion that you're automatically good at Starcraft if you post on forums a lot is completely laughable, and that's putting it nicely. It's just sad when you come to a "forum" and think, "Well I can't be validated in Starcraft until I raise my post count, so I guess I'll just go post in the movie threads until I'm considered a legitimate Starcraft player." Excuse me while I roll my eyes.



Edit: the second part wasn't directed at you oo_xerox

On June 16 2010 14:19 deL wrote:
Can we ignore votes of anyone with less than 500 posts?

On June 16 2010 14:19 deL wrote:
Can we ignore votes of anyone with less than 500 posts?

On June 14 2010 21:18 shalafi wrote:
Sincerely, the join date is more useful to classify people. I see myself looking at join dates all the time. "This HAS to be a post sc2 user"->check->95% of the times I'm right.

But some of the best users only have a few of posts (MDT anyone?), while some posters made over 1000 since the start of the beta.


So about the post count... I don't care.

On June 16 2010 17:20 NET wrote:
Voted: Don't care, well because I don't care.

If I spammed my way to 9000 post I would probably say keep it the way it is. But in all honesty I would hope to see less spam if it were taken away, and more quality post in return. Join date would tell you more about the poster right off the bat. As for those people that care about post count, adding it to their profile may be a good compromise.

As stated above me, "Even though I'm a lowly 200 poster..." This statement in itself shows some validity to the fact many people take post count too seriously and may entail them to believe their knowledge means more so then someone whose been here longer but with a smaller post count. Just some food for thought.

On June 16 2010 17:20 NET wrote:
Voted: Don't care, well because I don't care.

If I spammed my way to 9000 post I would probably say keep it the way it is. But in all honesty I would hope to see less spam if it were taken away, and more quality post in return. Join date would tell you more about the poster right off the bat. As for those people that care about post count, adding it to their profile may be a good compromise.

As stated above me, "Even though I'm a lowly 200 poster..." This statement in itself shows some validity to the fact many people take post count too seriously and may entail them to believe their knowledge means more so then someone whose been here longer but with a smaller post count. Just some food for thought.

On June 16 2010 17:41 Divinek wrote:


eh, in the vast majority of cases post count is a pretty good indicator of the quality of poster the person is. This is only because there are like 039420349 retards on the internet, and retards dont last long around here thus they dont have high post counts, though there are some exceptions as some big retards here also contribute alot so they get a ton of leniency, which is overall a good system.

But join date is a pretty big factor too

On June 16 2010 17:20 NET wrote:
Voted: Don't care, well because I don't care.

If I spammed my way to 9000 post I would probably say keep it the way it is. But in all honesty I would hope to see less spam if it were taken away, and more quality post in return. Join date would tell you more about the poster right off the bat. As for those people that care about post count, adding it to their profile may be a good compromise.

As stated above me, "Even though I'm a lowly 200 poster..." This statement in itself shows some validity to the fact many people take post count too seriously and may entail them to believe their knowledge means more so then someone whose been here longer but with a smaller post count. Just some food for thought.

On June 16 2010 22:39 Navane wrote:
Keep the post count number, but remove posts from people with a lower post count than yourself. So each user only seas post from users with the same or higher post count.

On June 17 2010 01:27 BajaBlood wrote:
That way I can compete with people in my own post count group and feel like I'm making real progress.

On June 17 2010 04:42 seppolevne wrote:
If you make good contributions then post count won't matter. MDT, Trozz, Marcoso, milkis are all good posters with low post counts. If you are respectful, insightful and friendly you will be accepted without any discrimination. If you bust in with memes and 1-word replies and a sense of entitlement then yeah, no one will respect you.

On June 17 2010 05:34 Dental Floss wrote:


This sentence is everything that is wrong with post counts and internet forums in general. Its not a competition to see who can post the most. If your posts suck then they suck, and if they rule they rule. It doesn't matter how many of them you've made, and having post counts only encourages white noise posting and dick-waving contests.



So post counts matter if you don't make good contributions? Like if you only post shit but you post a ton of it its okay?

On June 16 2010 22:39 Navane wrote:
Keep the post count number, but remove posts from people with a lower post count than yourself. So each user only seas post from users with the same or higher post count.

On June 16 2010 17:20 NET wrote:
Voted: Don't care, well because I don't care.

If I spammed my way to 9000 post I would probably say keep it the way it is. But in all honesty I would hope to see less spam if it were taken away, and more quality post in return. Join date would tell you more about the poster right off the bat. As for those people that care about post count, adding it to their profile may be a good compromise.

As stated above me, "Even though I'm a lowly 200 poster..." This statement in itself shows some validity to the fact many people take post count too seriously and may entail them to believe their knowledge means more so then someone whose been here longer but with a smaller post count. Just some food for thought.

On June 17 2010 13:59 joe.kukish wrote:
I think that the join date is more useful than the post count. It will be useful to add this information.