Character minimums

[Washougal_Otaku 1,020]

Has anyone else found the character limits to be annoying and unnecessary?

 

While I can understand having such a limit in an attempt to create valuable conversations and limiting pointless spam, it can also be a hassle trying to find a few extra words to add to an otherwise-valid statement.  I've made several posts in which I was a few letters shy, and felt that adding some words for the sake of a "requirement" was counter-productive to my message.  As such, I often use those moments to make a light-hearted joke about the characters.

 

The argument of SPAM can be counter-argued by pointing out that a true spammer can still post something spammish with no limit to letters and punctuation marks.  Requiring us to type extra characters as a way to curb spamming is illogical, and unfair to those of us that can make valid points with 87 letters instead of 101.

 

Are there other in here that agree with me on this?  Should the limits be removed, or lessened?

[Jeric 46,834]

Should the limits be removed, or lessened?

 

I don't believe so. I find that the character minimums tend to assist in the flow of incoming site traffic as there is additional content to work with SEO.  I also find that character minimums statistically, and categorically, assist in furthering more in-depth conversation. In some sections character minimums do discourage spam accounts. Again there is supported statistical evidence. It is why this feature is available in all forum software. 

 

This site once operated without character minimums. From what I can tell, it was a bit messy. It is always about applying the User Experience approach that will have the greatest positive impact, while balancing against a potential negative. There is a greater positive impact from encouraging longer posts. 

 

You may not be aware, but MLPF did not always have a minimum character requirement. We have a comparison between the two. I prefer reading posts today. Reading over the long ago posts that felt too much like YouTube and EQD comments make me especially glad this was implemented. 

[Washougal_Otaku 1,020]

...all forum software?  If that's the case, then why is this the first forum that I've ever seen use it?  I've never even seen it in the forum that I'm a mod for.  While encouraging longer posts is nice, they aren't always necessary.  Sometimes, a point can be made effectively when such a limit isn't forced upon.

[Jeric 46,834]

Well, to be fair it is a hook in IPB and not native. But yes a few I post on (MLPF isn't my only home. I have built, hosted, and administer forums longer than my teenagers have been alive), do utilize this function in areas that they desire to encourage additional content. 

 

 

 

Sometimes, a point can be made effectively when such a limit isn't forced upon.

 

Perhaps, but that is missing the point.

 

 

 

There is quite a bit of psychology behind this. It has been analyzed to death. I used Twitter for a reason. See the increase of retweets once it hits 71-100 characters? The actual data sweet spot is right at 100 characters if you break it down. That means that there is a greater chance of readers determining that a point is worth sharing. Engagement is higher when the character limit is met. Of course it isn't all of the time, but as opposed to managing to the exception ... this policy manages to the larger population and benefits all. It also makes MLP Forums a bit different and more content driven than other Brony sites. That is something I laud us for. 

[Washougal_Otaku 1,020]

Based off of the chart (and if I were to agree with it, which I don't), wouldn't lowering the limit to about 70 be more reasonable?  These are also based off of tweets, not forum posts.  It's a different medium, and doesn't have a forced measurement on it.

 

This also doesn't address the point that I made that people can fake the limit if it means forcing a limit on people.  There are others that will have a post end with random jibberish just to meet these requirements.  I try to have them be comical, and as such, have been spoken to by another mod about what I did, as if though it violated forum policy.  That's not right.  Unless it is truly against the forum rules, nobody should be getting that type of a message because they saw no reason to add an extra three words to something in order to meet a "requirement" determined by a Twitter stat.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Washougal_Otaku

[Jeric 46,834]

I included the Twitter info to allow a different perspective, and so the post didn't come across as a 'cause reasons response. I abhor those responses. Suffice to say, this is an enforced rule because posts in general or far more approachable, readable, and complete. The amount of pointless posts has declined since we have implemented the Character Count Rule some time ago.

 

Take this very thread, for example, as proof of the type of focused and content driven discussion that can occur when posts are lengthier. You are correct in one thing. We aren't seeking puropfully verbose - but we are encouraging quality. This is why the rule exists.

 

[Fhaolan 4,468]

It is against the forum rules. http://mlpforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules&utm_source=website&utm_medium=navbar&utm_campaign=ux

 

Specifically:

 

Make quality posts. Posts - and threads - that lack contributing content are not allowed and may be deleted without notice. Repeatedly creating posts and/or threads that are off-topic, spammy, or otherwise pointless will result in your posting capabilities becoming restricted. There is a minor character minimum in most of the site's sections that aids moderators in trying to uphold content quality - do not attempt to bypass it.

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

Charecter minimums help reduce spam, and make it easier to pick out those who disobey spam rules.... It just keeps our threads cleaner.

[Simcity11100 770]

I understand if you have something interesting to say that is below the character limit, but most of the post that are below the minimum aren't really interesting in the first place.  Honestly, 100 characters isn't really that big, you should be glad it isn't higher.  There's actually a forum around here somewhere that was all against this and I think the forum died off though cause really the benefits of a character limit out weigh the benefits of those without one.  I mean look at the post before the minimum and after the minimum, I find that post overall is better and I'm pretty sure you will too.  Before in octavia's hall, people would say something like "that's good" or "that's bad" and I find that to be "useless feedback" cause the response lacks the reason why it's good or bad and doesn't help the artist improve.  You might even find post that say things like "nope" which don't even contribute to the conversation, so honestly if you think that removing the character minimum is more helpful, well, I would think twice.  Also the whole, add random letters to the post thing isn't really much of an argument because lets be honest, no one does that here.

 

I was in fact one of the people that argued against the character limit but honestly I saw it being more useful than not, so I decided in the end that I saw the good in it.  You see if you don't look at the bright side of this you will see that the benefits are better than the negatives cause really, there isn't too many negatives, and the ones that exist, well, you'd have to nitpick them.  Besides, we really don't need to argue over something that isn't that huge.

[Washougal_Otaku 1,020]

Make quality posts. Posts - and threads - that lack contributing content are not allowed and may be deleted without notice. Repeatedly creating posts and/or threads that are off-topic, spammy, or otherwise pointless will result in your posting capabilities becoming restricted. There is a minor character minimum in most of the site's sections that aids moderators in trying to uphold content quality - do not attempt to bypass it.

 

Okay, thank you for that clarification.  I didn't recall seeing the part about the character limit when I first signed up.

 

However, I still believe that you're all wrong that having a 100 character limit is a good thing.  I have made many posts that have been incredibly valid points or insightful statements that have been under 100, and have been forced to add garbage in order to meet this requirement.  While in this thread it hasn't been a problem at all, it has been elsewhere.  Depending on the discussion, I can make a reasonably great point on something with five words.  Having the imposed requirement isn't always necessary.  Therefore, again, I think having the limit being reduced ought to be reasonable.

[Jeric 46,834]

 

 

Before in octavia's hall, people would say something like "that's good" or "that's bad" and I find that to be "useless feedback" cause the response lacks the reason why it's good or bad and doesn't help the artist improve.

 

That is actually part of the reason they were adopted to begin with. To be honest, encouraging really deep and helpful feedback for our artists has been something staff have looked into in the past. Increasing the character count has helped a little, but this reminds me that we still have a ways to go there. Thank you. 

[Washougal_Otaku 1,020]

I can understand wanting people to give legit feedback to artists seeking suggestions, but 100 characters?  Feedback can be highly insightful with less than that.  "I think Princess Luna's mane needs more sparkles."  That was about 40 characters, and still quite insightful. I can understand the 20 limit, or even extending it out to 30 or so.  Even a 70 can be somewhat helpful with y'all's take on the subject.  However, I know that I am still correct on what I've been saying; these limits can be bothersome, more so than what y'all are making them out to be.  If someone truly wanted to troll, they could still do it with these limits up.  Heck, I've thought about seeing if I could be permitted to do so, just to prove that point.  I can EASILY do that.

 

 Also the whole, add random letters to the post thing isn't really much of an argument because lets be honest, no one does that here.

 

Yes, some people do.  I've seen it before.  That's why I felt that my comical take on it was acceptable.  Please stop insinuating that I am lying.  I know what I've seen, and that does happen.

[Lightning Dash 327]

...all forum software? If that's the case, then why is this the first forum that I've ever seen use it? I've never even seen it in the forum that I'm a mod for. While encouraging longer posts is nice, they aren't always necessary. Sometimes, a point can be made effectively when such a limit isn't forced upon.

Well actually there are different character limits depending on what section it is. The whole idea of the character limit is to encourage better quality of feedback for the different types of discussions. Like for example, the debates section is at 100 characters minimum. It's not like you're going to see any useful/productive responses under 100 characters for a debate. It's possible but the original poster of the thread would prefer to get as much feedback as possible, at least I would.

 

In a way you have a point but there are more benefits coming from the limit being in place rather than not having it at all. I've noticed, however, regardless of what section you're in, it always say '20 character limit' in the quick reply box. I'm guessing that's a bug.

 

Okay, thank you for that clarification. I didn't recall seeing the part about the character limit when I first signed up.

 

However, I still believe that you're all wrong that having a 100 character limit is a good thing. I have made many posts that have been incredibly valid points or insightful statements that have been under 100, and have been forced to add garbage in order to meet this requirement. While in this thread it hasn't been a problem at all, it has been elsewhere. Depending on the discussion, I can make a reasonably great point on something with five words. Having the imposed requirement isn't always necessary. Therefore, again, I think having the limit being reduced ought to be reasonable.

Sure, it's possible to create a post under the current limits while giving a good enough response to the subject, but the whole idea, again, is to encourage better feedback for the discussion at hand. As already said in here, it also lowers the chance of spamming in threads. Just take a look at all the responses in this thread. They're more complete and understandable for all to read. If there was a small reply in this thread compared to the larger, more complete replies, it wouldn't be worth the read.

 

The point is; The main idea for it as I've gathered is not necessarily to reduce spam but to encourage higher quality responses from the other members participating in the thread. Almost all small replies can be upgraded into a much greater and more productive post. I'm sure you'd have more to say than "I think Princess Luna's mane needs more sparkles.". Normally if I see a fan art and comment on it, I'd normally say how good it is and what works then comment on what doesn't work with a few suggestions to improve the overall quality. That way the artist gets a good balance of praise and criticism so they know what's needed to be done if any improvements can be made.

 

While a small reply can be satisfactory to the reader, a larger, more complete response goes further and gives more information for the reader to reply to. It's far better when making a post to add as much information to it as you can so it's more complete and gets your points/views on the subject heard. It then helps others to make a complete/more productive reply back to it.