Post Minimums?

[DaBigE]

Any thoughts on having a minimum amount of content in a post, like a word or character minimum? I'm not sure if this forum program has such a capability, but I've been on other forums with settings like this and it (IMHO) makes for a more enjoyable experience, since it weeds out all the one-word posts that don't do much more than take up screen real-estate and run up someone's post count.

[Indyroads]

I can certainly see your point here, there's not a lot of value in a post that reads simply I agree or just includes a word or two that doesn't really add value to the discussion. But how may words is too few words for a post. IMHO the best posts are those that have something to add to the discussion or express a view in favor or even different to the previous posts. For the most part I have found that many posts here are thoughtfully added. but we could all use a dose of posting etiquette now and then, I just don't know how that would be tightly policed or whether it would be the right thing to do.

[corco]

I mostly agree that it's not a bad idea, provided the minimum were kept at a reasonable level (100 characters or so). My only concern would be that occasionally/often, a posted link with no commentary is all that needs to be said to contribute to a conversation, so that'd be a struggle.

I guess I'm indifferent on the idea. I can definitely see the merit and can envision times where it would up the level of conversation, but I can envision situations where it would be annoying. Given the roadgeek culture where a lot of the long-timers are still weaning themselves off what they're used to at MTR, they might be annoyed by what they perceive as a draconian moderation measure, but I can't speak for them.

[on_wisconsin]

Corco: A 100 character minimum would kill off 99% of all posts where the point is best portrayed in photographic form. i.e. pics of construction, signs, stop lights etc. Also bye-bye Road Illustrations sub forum if such draconian measures where introduced.

Now a minimum word limit around 3 might not be a bad idea.

[froggie]

You guys keep forgetting that "ignorance is bliss".  Don't want to read the one-word uppities?  Just skip over them.  It's really not that hard.

[english si]

^ this

[1995hoo]

I think in most circumstances, the only times one- or two-word posts are truly useless are when someone just says "+1" or "bump," but I can't think of a time when I've seen posts like that on this particular forum (and on other fora where I've seen that sort of thing, the moderators have usually made a rule banning that sort of post rather than one-word posts).

I also think the point about photos is spot-on. The nature of this forum's subject matter makes it a particularly appropriate place for merely posting a photo or video without any accompanying text, especially where the photo says all that needs to be said.

In other words, isn't it really more an issue of quality versus quantity?

[agentsteel53]

if anyone can eliminate the sudden +1/like culture from our species, I'd be all for it.

come up with your own thoughts, people!

[briantroutman]

I would agree with the spirit of such a limit, but I don't think it would work, practically, for many of the reasons mentioned. And if there was a character minimum (say 100 characters), someone who wanted to post "yawn" could just post

yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn

Or go the spammer route and paste a completely irrelevant erotic novel excerpt below the post.

[formulanone]

I think in most circumstances, the only times one- or two-word posts are truly useless are when someone just says "+1" or "bump," but I can't think of a time when I've seen posts like that on this particular forum (and on other fora where I've seen that sort of thing, the moderators have usually made a rule banning that sort of post rather than one-word posts).

I mod a forum like that; it's one thing when a rare and succinct "no" or "+1" does the trick, but quite another when a large portion of a user's posts are of that style. We'd also introduced a "Like" feature, which I'd opposed to in theory at first (it reduces actual thoughts into simple head nods, and creates a backscratching based on semi-artificial forum relationships), but we've found it also cuts down on useless +1, 2, etc. or solely thumbs-up/"this" posts which really add nothing more. It's also far nicer than someone re-quoting your post merely to nit-pick a very minor misspelling or grammatical mistake (fine for "please proofread this" threads, but not for general discussion).

It's not a real problem here, from what I can tell, although there's moments on any board when a really great post sometimes deserves nothing more than a simple positive reaction, so as not to spoil it.

[DaBigE]

I agree that it's not a huge problem here, rather just a minor nuisance. The photo issue was something I completely forgot...largely because the other forums usually have text accompanying posted photos. I would imagine that if such a minimum was possible that some kind of photo filter/rule exception could be programmed as well.

As far as a character minimum, I was thinking more along the lines of something like 10 or 15...just enough to make a poster think twice before posting "yawn" or "poo" and nothing more. If the minimum was set around those lines, I think the syntax for posting an image would take care of the minimum.

On the flip-side, would it be that hard to post a short caption for a photo? Sure, I suppose there are some photos that speak for themselves.

[hotdogPi]

"I-87" is only 4 characters. If someone wants that, what would happen?

[Brandon]

"I-87" is only 4 characters. If someone wants that, what would happen?

"Eye-eighty-seven."  There, you have seventeen characters including the dashes and the period at the end. 

[1995hoo]

"I-87" is only 4 characters. If someone wants that, what would happen?

You could type out the word "Interstate," which is 10 characters (thus, counting the space between words you would gain nine characters).

[Molandfreak]

United States Numbered Highway Ten.

[Brandon]

United States Numbered Highway Ten.

Not Federal Highway Ten?

<ducks>

[vdeane]

United States Numbered Highway Ten.

Not Federal Highway Ten?

<ducks>

Only when talking to Viatologists.

[Takumi]

And blawp.

[J N Winkler]

While I support the intention behind the idea of having a post minimum, I think the implementation difficulties (such as the barrier to short pithy posts, photo links, etc.) outweigh the potential benefits, and it doesn't strike me that we have a huge problem with plus-one posts.  Flooders can be dealt with by the admins on a case-by-case basis, e.g. by imposing a temporary "soft" daily post limit equal to no more than two times the average daily posting volume of the person with the most posts.

[Duke87]

If someone is being a nuisance by making too many short unhelpful posts, moderator action can handle that. The idea of auto-enforcing a character minimum is really only attractive if such posts are being made rampantly by a lot of people. On this forum I can only imagine it would cause more annoyance than it would prevent.

[bugo]

Any thoughts on having a minimum amount of content in a post, like a word or character minimum? I'm not sure if this forum program has such a capability, but I've been on other forums with settings like this and it (IMHO) makes for a more enjoyable experience, since it weeds out all the one-word posts that don't do much more than take up screen real-estate and run up someone's post count.

0

[bugo]

if anyone can eliminate the sudden +1/like culture from our species, I'd be all for it.

come up with your own thoughts, people!

One can come up with his own thoughts and still agree with the thoughts of others.

[Alps]

And blawp.

this post filtered due to word limit restriction
we are not fascist, say what you want and we'll decide whether to kill you or not