Limited rights to start a thread. [Archive]

Hammerin Hank

06-09-2006, 06:22 AM

Captain Cold Nose

06-09-2006, 06:31 AM

It's not a bad idea, but it is unfair as we do have a lot of newer members who do contribute greatly because of strong areas of expertise. Tango Tiger comes to mind there, not to slight anyone.
In the end, I'm not sure how much space that will save, because they may only cut slightly into the amount of threads we have. But I don't think you're too far off the mark, YR.

W_Marone

06-09-2006, 08:25 AM

is there a way we can delete old threads that no one has posted in for like six months or somethin, then that would create space.

Ubiquitous

06-09-2006, 10:44 AM

If you think about it basing thread rights on post count will probably have the exact opposite effect. It would create an incentive to post as many posts as possible as fast as possible.

If you post around 8 or so posts a day and you want to talk about something and you are at 50 posts are you going to wait a week to get over 100 posts or are you going to start increasing your post output?

Jake83

06-09-2006, 10:47 AM

Posters should have their thread rights taking away for a peroid of time if they contiune to start threads without judgement.

Captain Cold Nose

06-09-2006, 11:06 AM

Posters should have their thread rights taking away for a peroid of time if they contiune to start threads without judgement.
But who's to really judge that lack of judgement? That last thing we need to have is a totalitarian site.
There are easier ways to deal with the above issues, hopefully without cost to the quality of the site or at the member's expense. If anyone has suggestions as to what we could do to handle perceived problems, and if enough members complain about certain instances, please, let us know. We can handle the issues, but we have to take them one step at a time.

Yankeebiscuitfan

06-09-2006, 11:58 AM

Captain Cold Nose

06-09-2006, 12:15 PM

Of course these posts have to make sense. And posts that are no longer than one sentence should be deleted.

It is just an idea.
The one problem with that is each of these posts would have to be manually deleted. Deleting all those posts is an extremely time consuming matter.
Initially, there was no minimum characters per post. We had one member who had at least half his posts with just "Yup." The minimum was then set for 10. Perhaps that should be increased again, as it would discourage posts that don't really say anything.

Erik Bedard

06-09-2006, 01:31 PM

I was thinking about the lack of space we have to deal with lately.

Then something came up to my mind.

On another forum (NYYfans.com) you are not allowed to start a thread until you have 100 posts.

I know this is not nice for new members, but I think it will help to save space.

What do you think about this?

Definitely not in the Trivia forum, where some people come solely to ask questions.

But I do agree that some people should not be allowed to start threads that are just dumb. I can think of at least two members who need to stop.

Yankeebiscuitfan

06-09-2006, 03:45 PM

Definitely not in the Trivia forum, where some people come solely to ask questions.

But I do agree that some people should not be allowed to start threads that are just dumb. I can think of at least two members who need to stop.

Okay, okay, I won't start a stupid threat again... :D

Do excessive sigs contribute to this lack of space? I am not a computer whizkid so I really don't know. If so a sig should be limited to one line without pictures for example. So if necessary I will delete mine.

Jake83

06-09-2006, 03:51 PM

It is diffcult to set guidelines for posters to start a thread. Only idea I can think of is once a good size amount of posters believe a poster has not shown good judgement in starting threads then the mods should relieve the poster's ability to start threads.

Mattingly

06-09-2006, 03:57 PM

On forums.nyyfans.com, you now have to meet a certain criteria, which is *BOTH* post count and length of stay here before you're allowed to post. This is done because it's a team forum whose most popular areas are the Yankee forums, and this dissuades both people registering just in time to trash the Yankees when their team plays them, as well as to prevent spammers and trolls from joining their ranks.

Since here at BBF, we get a sizeable dose of 1-post spammers, mostly advertisers hawking their wares on ebay and their websites, I can see this being an option, but the time limit thing may need to be used also.

If people join our membership primarily to ask questions into new threads, then this would counter that effectiveness of this forum.

As to judging the quality of posts, if someone makes a flurry of posts that are roundly criticized by the regulars, I'd say that's a good indication that the quality of that person's posts aren't that good. If just one or two criticisms of a thread by someone, and if the thread starter is otherwise of quality, then that thread may not necessarily be an indication of the forumer's capabilities.

BronxBoy

06-09-2006, 04:26 PM

It's threads like this that waste space -- photos take a lot of space; headers and trailers take a lot of space; repeating the prior post with the answer takes a lot of space; etc.

Yankeebiscuitfan

06-09-2006, 04:33 PM

It's threads like this that waste space -- photos take a lot of space; headers and trailers take a lot of space; repeating the prior post with the answer takes a lot of space; etc.

I don't agree with you. Threads like these are started to try to solve a problem this site is dealing with right now.

Mattingly

06-09-2006, 04:46 PM

It's threads like this that waste space -- photos take a lot of space; headers and trailers take a lot of space; repeating the prior post with the answer takes a lot of space; etc.
I just figure that people are trying to cut down on the amount of first-timers who aren't fully versed in how forums work, and reducing the amounts of less useful posts here as a result.

Anyway, as to the other forum, from their FAQ (http://www.nyyfans.com/faq.php#2c):
Q: Why can't I start a new thread in any of the baseball forums?

A: We require users to have 50 posts AND be a member for 6 months (180 days, to be exact) before they are able to start a new thread outside of the Introductions or Suggestion Box forums.

We created this rule because we feel it's important for new users to have some time to participate before jumping right in. In other words, it gives people time to learn our rules. It also cuts down (significantly!) on the amount of duplicate and misplaced threads, not to mention spam.

SoxSon

06-09-2006, 05:01 PM

It's threads like this that waste space.

There's not really too many other ways for people here to work out a problem, BB. We have to post our ideas.

Not sure how this might be utilized, but after a recent flurry in the CE forum, I'm wondering if something should be done to limit poll creation by newer members? Not "newer" by post count, but by length of time here? (I think Ubiq makes a good point about posting just to meet a number.)

Mattingly

06-09-2006, 05:19 PM

There's not really too many other ways for people here to work out a problem, BB. We have to post our ideas.

Not sure how this might be utilized, but after a recent flurry in the CE forum, I'm wondering if something should be done to limit poll creation by newer members? Not "newer" by post count, but by length of time here? (I think Ubiq makes a good point about posting just to meet a number.)
That's where the number of posts *AND* the amount of time spent here kicks in.

Hopefully, dormant forumers won't take advantage and start posting rubbish.

jpenrod

06-09-2006, 05:35 PM

That's where the number of posts *AND* the amount of time spent here kicks in.

Hopefully, dormant forumers won't take advantage and start posting rubbish.

Another forum I am a member of (non baseball) requires you to make a minimum number of posts before allowing you access to certain forums. You then have to request access agreeing to certian terms and before access is granted the previous posts you made are reviewed to insure you are not simply wasting space. I am not saying this is a good idea for BBF, but maybe you can take something away from it.

I believe the number of posts required is 15 so it is not that hihgh and with the review it allows the mods to make certian posts are not being made just to gain access. all in all it is a good process for that forum.

digglahhh

06-09-2006, 05:53 PM

Just don't indulge the ridiculous posts my responding.

Attention seekers disappear when their attempts are unrequited.

RBi

06-09-2006, 06:12 PM

FYI, I wanted to let everyone know we recently reduced our space used by 60%.

So we currently are sitting fine on the space issue.

SoxSon

06-09-2006, 07:45 PM

FYI, I wanted to let everyone know we recently reduced our space used by 60%.

So we currently are sitting fine on the space issue.

Wow. So Mattingly isn't a member here anymore, huh? :p

Elvis

06-09-2006, 08:01 PM

Okay, okay, I won't start a stupid threat again... :D

Do excessive sigs contribute to this lack of space? I am not a computer whizkid so I really don't know. If so a sig should be limited to one line without pictures for example. So if necessary I will delete mine.

Pics in sigs don't use any space or bandwidth here because they're hosted elsewhere.

RBi

06-09-2006, 08:15 PM

Pics in sigs don't use any space or bandwidth here because they're hosted elsewhere.
perhaps your is...
but others might not be...

W_Marone

06-09-2006, 09:15 PM

The one problem with that is each of these posts would have to be manually deleted. Deleting all those posts is an extremely time consuming matter.
Initially, there was no minimum characters per post. We had one member who had at least half his posts with just "Yup." The minimum was then set for 10. Perhaps that should be increased again, as it would discourage posts that don't really say anything.

but what about in threads such as the buy or sell one?

Mattingly

06-10-2006, 11:19 AM

Another forum I am a member of (non baseball) requires you to make a minimum number of posts before allowing you access to certain forums. You then have to request access agreeing to certian terms and before access is granted the previous posts you made are reviewed to insure you are not simply wasting space. I am not saying this is a good idea for BBF, but maybe you can take something away from it.

I believe the number of posts required is 15 so it is not that hihgh and with the review it allows the mods to make certian posts are not being made just to gain access. all in all it is a good process for that forum.
Is that a very small forum, such as no 100-reply posts? If so, and if there are a few Mods, that could be easier. With our numbers, the review process could be almost impossible.

We mostly depend upon Mods reading the posts, as well as members PMing us or hitting the "Bad post" thing when someone goes off the deep end, is abusive, uses 4-lettered words, advertises, and similar unmentionables.

If using any criteria, I'd say that 15-25 posts and 1 month should suffice for thread creation rights. On the forementioned nyyfans forum, new members have PM'd senior members to start topics for them, since the newbies' rights were limited.

The post count both limits the 1-post advertisers and lurkers who are doing some research or have interesting questions, may actually register just to post a question.

The 1-post spammers often have their accounts nuked, as they are of the hit-and-run variety who want their ebay and other stuff being sold, so it's the lurkers who have something to contribute that may be hurt by this.

I think it sets a decent mix of the gates being open but not too far open, nor too far closed to dissuade anyone from offering something of value here.

Mattingly

06-10-2006, 11:24 AM

Wow. So Mattingly isn't a member here anymore, huh? :p
Yeah, finally got rid of the bum. Gotta get that 60% reduction somewhere. :D :p :laugh
Pics in sigs don't use any space or bandwidth here because they're hosted elsewhere.
I've never been a fan of pics in sigs. People often make them so large. What bothers me the most is when they're very tall, as I can't read the text of what someone's writing. Presuming someone isn't going for a Masters of Fine Art degree, I figure why should an entire screen be taken up between an extremely long sig line or a large, hi-resolution color picture?

Even people on dial-up may wish to read people's signature lines, but if someone has a very long one, this can slow things to a crawl.

To me, if you've got something to add, then post it. Those pretty pics are nice and cute, but in the end, adds zero to your quality of contributions here.

Richmond Hill Phoenix

06-30-2006, 08:35 PM

I agree 100%. Large signatures are not needed. Especially if you post often in the same thread. In that case, people must look at your signature countless times as they read that certain thread.

On the topic of limiting accounts: I think that a limited account for new members is a good idea. Perhaps they could be "monitored" by an existing member for their first month to make sure they are posting well, and in an orderly fashion. A mentor-typee program.

Seattle1

07-04-2006, 08:21 AM

is there a way we can delete old threads that no one has posted in for like six months or somethin, then that would create space.

Sometimes I like to resurrect old threads that are intersting but just seem to have been forgotten about somehow.

webmaster

07-04-2006, 02:24 PM

An even better suggestion is to just enjoy the site. The space issue has been resolved. We went nearly 6 years without deleting a single thread. Just taking care of that alone has put us below the terabyte mark which will keep us good for another couple years.

In respect to the first question, I don't particularly like the 100 posts rule. Dozens of former players, umpires, team executives, authors, media members, researchers, historians and other similar type people have joined here over the years. I cannot see myself not allowing an author of 20+ baseball books to not make a new post because he has not been involved in 100 posts (or even 20 or 10).

Our focus has always been content over quality and if a brand new member makes one great new post it is better than another member who makes 20 "quick posts" trying (for some reason) to raise their post count instead of offering help, assistance, additional research, or other quality baseball content related specifically to the thread...

Enjoy the site and I'll make sure we stay up & running without problems - promise.

Sean

Seattle1

07-05-2006, 10:04 AM

Dozens of former players, umpires, team executives, authors, media members, researchers, historians and other similar type people have joined here over the years.

Wow what players are members here?

Williamsburg2599

07-05-2006, 11:25 AM

Wow what players are members here?
The only one I know of is Hiddengem,who is a minor league player in the San Diego farm system,I beleve. As for the 100 post rule,thats not something I would like for the same reasons Sean listed, in fact my first post here,I started a thread to ask a question.

webmaster

07-06-2006, 08:35 AM

Wow what players are members here?

More than 20 that I know of off-hand. Ranging from as old as 80, to stuck in the minors, to one who is in the Hall of Fame. There are also two current umpires I know of and one retired. There are quite a few who are team type people (front office) from various organizations.

As for who they are, I'd never write that out here in the forum. The beauty of the site is that they can remain anonymous, not have their email revealed or their identity, and enjoy a baseball discussion forum just like a fan of the game - which they are as well.

Sean

Richmond Hill Phoenix

07-06-2006, 02:38 PM

There's a HOF'er here? Wow!! I never knew...

Seattle1

07-06-2006, 02:57 PM

As for who they are, I'd never write that out here in the forum. The beauty of the site is that they can remain anonymous, not have their email revealed or their identity, and enjoy a baseball discussion forum just like a fan of the game

Yeah, that's probably the best policy.

webmaster

07-07-2006, 10:42 AM

There's a HOF'er here? Wow!! I never knew...

Two (that I know of for certain) if you count executives!

Sean

Ubiquitous

07-07-2006, 11:51 AM

There is only one HoF executive stil alive and he is almost 90.

Cubsfan97

07-18-2006, 10:14 AM

Wow, thats awesome we have a HOFer here.

SoxSon

07-18-2006, 11:07 AM

There is only one HoF executive stil alive and he is almost 90.

So...why couldn't he be poking around online?

Captain Cold Nose

07-18-2006, 11:35 AM

So...why couldn't he be poking around online?
No reason. But the fact there is only one surviving Executive HOF'er (unless managers are in that equation) is kind of is a big clue as to whom that person is.
With hiddengem, though, there have been plenty of references to him without actually revealing his name. Everyone should enjoy that same respect.

SoxSon

07-18-2006, 03:19 PM

No reason. But the fact there is only one surviving Executive HOF'er (unless managers are in that equation) is kind of is a big clue as to whom that person is.
With hiddengem, though, there have been plenty of references to him without actually revealing his name. Everyone should enjoy that same respect.

I'm all for poster's anonymity.
I was commenting on the fact that Ubiquitous seemed to be ruling out that individual due to his age.