Minimum post lengths

[Zoop 8,384]

I've run and been a part of several forums in my time, and personally, I feel deleting posts is a form of censorship. Aren't server costs entirely funded by donations from the users? Even if not entirely, those donations do go towards keeping the site up, which is the community's money. Why is it not a democracy if the community itself is assisting in funds? I fully understand the staff's desire for quality posts, but this is a forum. A forum for discussion. If a thread goes off-topic, I really don't see the harm in that, because really all they're doing is chatting and is that not the goal of a forum? To discuss? There is a HUGE difference between spam and posts that are on the shorter side, off-topic, etc. If somebody says, "I like this", how is that not contributing to the topic? They're giving their opinion, no? Requiring an analysis of their opinions verges on stupidity rather than attempting to cut back on "bad" posts.

 

I respect what has been built here, but I believe that the community should be given more say in actual operations, considering the amount of donations that are given every month.

Given my first hand knowledge of the content that we 'censor' on this website, I can state very firmly and resolutely that I would have no interest being here if said censorship was not in place.

As someone that has given donations to this place since they day they were available, I have always done so because I found the policies, guidelines, and administration as a whole to be to my liking. I have never donated to any organization with the idea in my head that I ought to have some sort of sway over their operation - my donation was itself an indication that I approved of their operations and had faith that they would continue to serve my interests.

I fail to see how simply stating personal agreement or disagreement in a thread contributes anything to anything. How does any meaningful discussion take place if everyone is simply stating if they agree or not with the subject at hand? If that is all somebody wants to do, I think that it is safe to say that they may be better off someplace else.

 

That wasn't what I was arguing. My point is that if users are donating every month, they should get some sort of say in decision making. The quality/quantity does not matter here; it's about censorship, and that's what I believe this is. Just right now, I was posting in "What Are You Listening To?" and had to add irrelevant parts to my message so that I could post it. Cutting down on spam and low quality posts shouldn't come at the expense of everyday posting. It also irritates me that "low quality posts" are included here; who decides whether or not the post is of low quality? Once again, the staff's definition of low quality posts are posts that contribute nothing to the topic, are short, etc. Yet, in this music thread, how much more can I add to the post without the post ITSELF becoming spammy?

I've gone ahead and moved the 'What are you listening to' thread to general silliness to keep it from being effected by the minimum.

If you want to call it censorship, that is fine - but I think you'll be very hard pressed to find many good forums that do not 'censor' posts in one way or another. And yes, it is generally up to the staff of any given website to determine what content is acceptable or not for a given community - that isn't exactly unusual.

 

Won't work. See?

Edit: In case it isn't obvious: It's very common for people to use quote function in their replies. Yet words in quote count too.

 

No worries - we're hoping to address that soon, in addition to adding the character counter that people have been asking about. More information on that as it develops. By the sound of it, good progress is underway even now. Hard to say when we'll have something finalized, though.

 

 

Hmmmm. I wonder if its a coincidence that the month I joined (May) had anything to do with those stubby posts being so high that month! D: I'm glad something is being done about the short posts but I don't think this is a good permanent solution. I'll recommend something later once I think of something

Aye, we're not claiming that this is a magic bullet that is instantly going to solve all of our woes. We are, of course, open to other ideas, and to tweaking the existing implementation as time goes by.

 

orely its only a rule then why dosnt it allow people to make the choice to make a shorter post rather then have the damn error pop up if they dont do so, and why does the error pop up even when you go over the minimum i made multiple posts that were alot longer then yours and i still got the error.

You don't get a choice when it comes to following rules.

 

Keep in mind that the minimum is 200 for roleplays and in life advice. If you notice that a post that should meet the minimum of the board you are posting is being rejected, please post in the support board, stating where you were attempting to make the post along with the text of the post that you were attempting to make.

[Ice Storm 1,020]

That wasn't what I was arguing. My point is that if users are donating every month, they should get some sort of say in decision making. The quality/quantity does not matter here; it's about censorship, and that's what I believe this is. Just right now, I was posting in "What Are You Listening To?" and had to add irrelevant parts to my message so that I could post it. Cutting down on spam and low quality posts shouldn't come at the expense of everyday posting. It also irritates me that "low quality posts" are included here; who decides whether or not the post is of low quality? Once again, the staff's definition of low quality posts are posts that contribute nothing to the topic, are short, etc. Yet, in this music thread, how much more can I add to the post without the post ITSELF becoming spammy?

 

 

 

A three word post, no matter what forum you are on, is not a quality post. In no way, can the words I like this, or I hate this expand on a topic. It doesn't create discussion, it destroys cohesion. Simply adding the word because and a reason is more often than not enough to get past the minimum. I have demonstrated Several instances in this topic where responses can be made to a topic using 100 characters or more as just a basic sentence. It's not that hard.

 

 

 

And something that you have to remember as well, yes, the forum mainly relies on donations, but it doesn't change the fact that these forums are still owned and operated by field0. Everything here is provided by him. The users help him yes, but something to remember is that these are technically private owned forums open to the public. The staff has every right to determine what "quality" means and how to run the site. And there will be just as many people that will support them through donations because of changes made to the rules than there would be people leaving, or cancelling subscriptions, and honestly, what does it say about a person who cancels a subscription to a forum because the forum requires them to actually post a sentence or two when they post.

 

 

 

 

I do have a job, and I have reservations about donating money to these forums, with the direction that this is going.

+1 counterpoint

 

Also if quality trumps quantity, then why is there a rule regulating the quantity of a post? Succinct is dead, heil filler!

 

There is no counterpoint there at all. And the reason the staff has post count rules in effect is to make people actually participate in the forums to be able to get the full access of the site for one, and two so that they can see the quality of users before they start running wild everywhere. Honestly, the entire argument I'm hearing from everyone that is complaining about this change is pretty much saying I'm too lazy to actually care about what I'm posting.

 

Seriously, the whole "I'm reconsidering donations" crap because they want a quality forum and not people that use l33t and chatspeak in the forum, and actually typing more than three words to contribute to a conversation is actually quite appalling, and offensive to the members that actually care about posting quality and the quality of the forums. I would much rather be part of a small community where I can have a detailed conversation about a topic with other people than a giant city of a community where I have to dig through pages after pages of meaningless, 3-5 word posts just to get to content that's worth reading.

 

And yes, it's always been Quality over quantity. One pound of purified 24kt gold will ALWAYS be worth more than one pound of 10kt gold. Why? because there are impurities in the gold, (such as iron, zinc, or aluminium) that while add to the weight of the block so that it still weighs a pound, only about 60% of the 10kt brick is actually gold. The same thing applies to forums and topics. A quality conversation on the forum will always be better than a conversation that has a few good posts and then everyone else saying I like this or I don't like this mingled in. As stated several times. The over all lack of quality in most of the Mane Forums is the primary reason I avoid Sugar Cube Corner, and the Show Discussion forums. There are a few topics there that are worth looking at, (in my opinion), but not many (also in my opinion.)

 

Bottom line, The staff has a set definition of what they view quality as, and I (personally) agree with them on every point. I've been around the block a few time when it comes to forums and it's the high-quality ones that will out-last the ones that are filled with spam. It doesn't take that much effort to make a one hundred character post. Heck most of you don't seem to have a problem coming up with long-winded arguments trying to claim that this is biased and unfair. Couldn't you easily put that same amount of effort into improving the quality of your posts elsewhere on the forums?

[Bronium 512]

That wasn't what I was arguing. My point is that if users are donating every month, they should get some sort of say in decision making.

 

 

Why? Just because they pay for the service doesn't make their opinions better. Should corporations make all the rules because they pay more in taxes? People can still have good ideas even if they're unable to donate.

 

 

Just right now, I was posting in "What Are You Listening To?" and had to add irrelevant parts to my message so that I could post it. Cutting down on spam and low quality posts shouldn't come at the expense of everyday posting.

 

If anything can be replied to in spam it should be in CC. That's what it's meant for. Spam. Now as Zoop said the topic you brought up was moved to General Silliness and rightly so. So you can spam all you want there. I'd say that if you feel like there's a way to make a post that contributes to the discussion in a meaningful way in under a hundred characters, I doubt it'd be a worthy topic of discussion.

 

And I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's a hundred characters. I mean, come on guys. How can you not write a hundred characters? Two hundred may be a bit steep for some but a hundred? This is madness. I mean, you don't have to speak like Mordin, you know.

[Neikos 968]

Why? Just because they pay for the service doesn't make their opinions better. Should corporations make all the rules because they pay more in taxes? People can still have good ideas even if they're unable to donate.

 

Taking corporations as your exemple is a nice idea, because it exactly works like that, public corruption, we don't want that on our forum do we? Edited July 22, 2012 by Jubilee van Neikos

[Whiteshade 1,426]

A three word post, no matter what forum you are on, is not a quality post. In no way, can the words I like this, or I hate this expand on a topic. It doesn't create discussion, it destroys cohesion. Simply adding the word because and a reason is more often than not enough to get past the minimum. I have demonstrated Several instances in this topic where responses can be made to a topic using 100 characters or more as just a basic sentence. It's not that hard.

 

Opinion is one thing, fact is another. Stop trying to present your opinion as facts. Do you have statistical figures to back the two claims up? Also, only a sith deals in absolutes.

And something that you have to remember as well, yes, the forum mainly relies on donations, but it doesn't change the fact that these forums are still owned and operated by field0. Everything here is provided by him. The users help him yes, but something to remember is that these are technically private owned forums open to the public. The staff has every right to determine what "quality" means and how to run the site. And there will be just as many people that will support them through donations because of changes made to the rules than there would be people leaving, or cancelling subscriptions, and honestly, what does it say about a person who cancels a subscription to a forum because the forum requires them to actually post a sentence or two when they post.

 

Again, that is just your perception, and I demand some numbers on this. Also it says the user finds such trivial rules and extent of control to be unprofessional and not worth the money. In the old days, moderators would take action on users that were causing trouble. Nowadays, they just make up a number, and enforce that number as a minimum, because that is presumed to increase post quality, and presumptions are always true.

There is no counterpoint there at all. And the reason the staff has post count rules in effect is to make people actually participate in the forums to be able to get the full access of the site for one, and two so that they can see the quality of users before they start running wild everywhere. Honestly, the entire argument I'm hearing from everyone that is complaining about this change is pretty much saying I'm too lazy to actually care about what I'm posting.

 

I am contemplating contributing to this thread in a meaningful fashion and hence exceeding 100 characters, which will undoubtedly prove that my post is intellectually driven and contains meaningful substance, hence contributing to important and serious discourse as a consequence.

 

Forcing people to make longer posts won't necessarily increase the quality of posts. It's causation, not correlation.

 

Seems you, the crusader against laziness, have fallen into laziness yourself, as this was my post on page 2 of the thread. Did you read it?

Seriously, the whole "I'm reconsidering donations" crap because they want a quality forum and not people that use l33t and chatspeak in the forum, and actually typing more than three words to contribute to a conversation is actually quite appalling, and offensive to the members that actually care about posting quality and the quality of the forums. I would much rather be part of a small community where I can have a detailed conversation about a topic with other people than a giant city of a community where I have to dig through pages after pages of meaningless, 3-5 word posts just to get to content that's worth reading.

 

Nice sweeping generalization you have there in the first part. I am sure that is the absolute truth and not just personal perception warped by opinions held previously.

The second part implies that only the members on your side care about these forums and that the other side is clearly crusading against it. False dilemma logical fallacy.

And yes, it's always been Quality over quantity. One pound of purified 24kt gold will ALWAYS be worth more than one pound of 10kt gold. Why? because there are impurities in the gold, (such as iron, zinc, or aluminium) that while add to the weight of the block so that it still weighs a pound, only about 60% of the 10kt brick is actually gold. The same thing applies to forums and topics. A quality conversation on the forum will always be better than a conversation that has a few good posts and then everyone else saying I like this or I don't like this mingled in. As stated several times. The over all lack of quality in most of the Mane Forums is the primary reason I avoid Sugar Cube Corner, and the Show Discussion forums. There are a few topics there that are worth looking at, (in my opinion), but not many (also in my opinion.)

 

You can look at whatever forums you want, but if you want to claim that poor quality is the deal breaker, I'm gonna have to request some evidence and statistics. Also I'm well aware of the definition of quality, and I believe many other users are aware of the word as well, so going into a ramble about gold is irrelevant. Or, did you assume that I was not educated enough to understand the word?

Bottom line, The staff has a set definition of what they view quality as, and I (personally) agree with them on every point. I've been around the block a few time when it comes to forums and it's the high-quality ones that will out-last the ones that are filled with spam. It doesn't take that much effort to make a one hundred character post. Heck most of you don't seem to have a problem coming up with long-winded arguments trying to claim that this is biased and unfair. Couldn't you easily put that same amount of effort into improving the quality of your posts elsewhere on the forums?

 

The ad hominem has surfaced. I am against this, and I do not agree with the staff in this case. I argue against this because I'm against this, and arguments in themselves require effort. As well, you are assuming throughout your speech, as I will call it, that everyone that is against this clearly cannot make quality posts, which is clearly a warped and flawed belief.

 

Step off your pedestal.

[Twilight Sparkle ✨ 8,526]

A three word post, no matter what forum you are on, is not a quality post. In no way, can the words I like this, or I hate this expand on a topic. It doesn't create discussion, it destroys cohesion. Simply adding the word because and a reason is more often than not enough to get past the minimum. I have demonstrated Several instances in this topic where responses can be made to a topic using 100 characters or more as just a basic sentence. It's not that hard.

 

 

 

And something that you have to remember as well, yes, the forum mainly relies on donations, but it doesn't change the fact that these forums are still owned and operated by field0. Everything here is provided by him. The users help him yes, but something to remember is that these are technically private owned forums open to the public. The staff has every right to determine what "quality" means and how to run the site. And there will be just as many people that will support them through donations because of changes made to the rules than there would be people leaving, or cancelling subscriptions, and honestly, what does it say about a person who cancels a subscription to a forum because the forum requires them to actually post a sentence or two when they post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no counterpoint there at all. And the reason the staff has post count rules in effect is to make people actually participate in the forums to be able to get the full access of the site for one, and two so that they can see the quality of users before they start running wild everywhere. Honestly, the entire argument I'm hearing from everyone that is complaining about this change is pretty much saying I'm too lazy to actually care about what I'm posting.

 

Seriously, the whole "I'm reconsidering donations" crap because they want a quality forum and not people that use l33t and chatspeak in the forum, and actually typing more than three words to contribute to a conversation is actually quite appalling, and offensive to the members that actually care about posting quality and the quality of the forums. I would much rather be part of a small community where I can have a detailed conversation about a topic with other people than a giant city of a community where I have to dig through pages after pages of meaningless, 3-5 word posts just to get to content that's worth reading.

 

And yes, it's always been Quality over quantity. One pound of purified 24kt gold will ALWAYS be worth more than one pound of 10kt gold. Why? because there are impurities in the gold, (such as iron, zinc, or aluminium) that while add to the weight of the block so that it still weighs a pound, only about 60% of the 10kt brick is actually gold. The same thing applies to forums and topics. A quality conversation on the forum will always be better than a conversation that has a few good posts and then everyone else saying I like this or I don't like this mingled in. As stated several times. The over all lack of quality in most of the Mane Forums is the primary reason I avoid Sugar Cube Corner, and the Show Discussion forums. There are a few topics there that are worth looking at, (in my opinion), but not many (also in my opinion.)

 

Bottom line, The staff has a set definition of what they view quality as, and I (personally) agree with them on every point. I've been around the block a few time when it comes to forums and it's the high-quality ones that will out-last the ones that are filled with spam. It doesn't take that much effort to make a one hundred character post. Heck most of you don't seem to have a problem coming up with long-winded arguments trying to claim that this is biased and unfair. Couldn't you easily put that same amount of effort into improving the quality of your posts elsewhere on the forums?

 

This post is right on the money. Quality trumps quantity, and good posts make for a fun forum to be part of. Last year, when MLP Forums was small enough for 500 members to be a major milestone, a lot of people gave very positive feedback that this was a place where big posts with lots of effort put into them are actually appreciated. Hundreds of millions of Internet users are moving towards shorter, faster, more "efficient" ways to communicate. The entire premise of Twitter is based on limiting your ability to produce content.

 

 

The Internet forum is a different type of social network. It's not a medium suited for announcing to the world what you are up to every minute of your life ("eating dinner now," "going to the bathroom," etc.); and unlike Facebook and Twitter, content is tightly organized for the precise purpose of making it easy to find in the future.

 

When searching for solutions to computer problems, you don't come across an awful lot of helpful status updates, do you? But chances are that you'll find more than a few forums with some well-written posts describing the problem and a solution to it. Forums empower users with a lot more freedom to format, publish, and host quality content than the more contemporary social networks, and this is a virtue that is well worth taking full advantage of. The conversation I just published explains this further in great depth.

 

That wasn't what I was arguing. My point is that if users are donating every month, they should get some sort of say in decision making. The quality/quantity does not matter here; it's about censorship, and that's what I believe this is. Just right now, I was posting in "What Are You Listening To?" and had to add irrelevant parts to my message so that I could post it. Cutting down on spam and low quality posts shouldn't come at the expense of everyday posting. It also irritates me that "low quality posts" are included here; who decides whether or not the post is of low quality? Once again, the staff's definition of low quality posts are posts that contribute nothing to the topic, are short, etc. Yet, in this music thread, how much more can I add to the post without the post ITSELF becoming spammy?

 

A few good responses have already been made to this, but I'd like to clarify exactly what a donation is.

 

A donation is a voluntary gift of money to me that you give out of the goodness of your heart. While I do depend on donations to maintain MLP Forums in tip-top shape, it does not change the fact that donations are a voluntary gift.

 

MLP Forums is a sole proprietorship; thus, it is a benevolent autocracy. While I do allow users to voice their feedback, I hold the right to reject it for any reason. Donating doesn't make you a shareholder, and being able to visit the site at all is a privilege that I control.

[MVC NVMXD JVRXD 2,406]

So I realized that you can avoid the post stuff by quoting things. Oh no.

 

Your post is very vague. Can you explain this, so we can actually talk about this? I really do not know what you're talking about.

 

[Azura 1,107]

To be honest this isn't such a big problem compared to the one I am experiencing right now which is related to the amount of letters needed in each post before you can post it.

 

One of the admins said how ponies are posting useless two to three word crap, but since there are only a small amount of ponies who do that we should just give them warnings instead of making everypony write more in each post.

 

I don't mind if a few of my posts get deleted for no good reason but this is just driving me crazy, the point where I have to add more and more to a post which is unnecessary just makes me frustrated.

 

All of the other forums don't have this and neither should this, so it would be nice if they removed it.

[HomuraBL 851]

I would kinda like to say something else on this matter. I've actually started making my post more high quality ever since that character counter limit was set into place. It really isn't that hard, and I find it ironic that a lot of people who seem to argue that this isn't a good idea usually write way much more the the required amount. Also, some people who are arguing against usually seem to write longer post anyway, so why does it matter to you?

 

Finally, I would ask you give it a couple days of posting before finally deciding on it. Because I for one love it.

[Tiina Brown 67]

Since the character minimum is fully automated, you cannot accuse anyone for anything when your post is so short that it would be worth deleting anyway. Meanwhile, there is no logical argument you can make a case for yourself with if you attempted to circumvent the system by adding nonsense to your post.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I think you missed the point. Posts like "I like this" or "I agree" contribute virtually nothing of value to MLP Forums as a website and community. Great, you agree with a post, but what is the significance of your agreement? Posts like that clutter discussions and ultimately lead to more scrolling and clicking being necessary to get to the good stuff in a topic.

 

If you only want to express your agreement to or support of a post, that's what the brohoof button is for. Posts are meant for you to produce some kind of content with, and "I like this" hardly qualifies as content.

 

Howcome the ones that conciders the 100-character limit to be bad is seen as if they have missed the point?

It is just as much the other way around, that the ones that speaks for the 100-character limit misses the points that the nay-sayers have.

 

You say that full agreement is what brohoof is for, and i say that people don't work that way.

Brohoof cannot replace the words "I agree", "Thank you", "Quoted and brohoofed for truth" or similar.

Nor can it replace the short comments of "I like that", or small puns that without doubt is neccesary in forums with a familiar tone like this one.

Brohoof is more like the brofist or high-five, an amplifier, and not merely an "I agree".

 

And, as also has been pointed out, some people are not comfortable with using several words.

To put it bluntly: the 100-caracter limit excludes Fluttershy.

 

Also, a note on the answer you gave to someone else (included above):

"Since the character minimum is fully automated, you cannot accuse anyone for anything".

You can accuse someone, still, namely the one that decided on adding that automated limit.

"Meanwhile, there is no logical argument you can make a case for yourself with if you attempted to circumvent the system by adding nonsense to your post."

If we agree on that nonsense is a nuisence, then why increasing it?

Who can decide what is a nonsense-addition and what is not?

 

Well, i get the impression that it is not possible to change your mind on it, and i seem to have said mine now, so i guess it has to be done the hard ... or at least the empirical way, and that the results may speak for themselves.

Who knows, i might even be wrong.

[Random User 249]

So I realized that you can avoid the post stuff by quoting things. Oh no.

 

Better just get rid of quoting things too.

[Scarfy HOOVES 310]

 

okay but what do we do as far as the posting pictures. in the funny pictures thread? and stuff like that. Edited July 23, 2012 by Scarfy HOOVES

[Azura 1,107]

It's nice to see somepony implanted a letter count on the bottom right of the screen so I know how much to write.

[Glaceon 793]

It's nice to see somepony implanted a letter count on the bottom right of the screen so I know how much to write.

 

Yeah I'm glad Feld0 saw my suggestion for it and he actually implemented it! The admins here are amazing!

 

And to people/ponies who are complaining about this rule the admins put it here for a reason and we should respect their decision regarding this matter.

[Ashbad 969]

Ever since this rule was started, if I accidentally made a post with 99 or less characters, and it went through, the whole post would be blank. Even if I edit them up to be something like 300+ chars, they're still blank.

[Azura 1,107]

Yeah I'm glad Feld0 saw my suggestion for it and he actually implemented it! The admins here are amazing!

 

And to people/ponies who are complaining about this rule the admins put it here for a reason and we should respect their decision regarding this matter.

 

That's awesome, I can't believe you were the one that suggesting such a useful thing for everypony to use.

[WhiteLightning 339]

All I hear is complaining right now. Is it seriously that hard to type a response that's over 100 or even 200 characters in length? This is a good thing. The graphs clearly show an increase in posts that lack content and the fact that members who left cited that they left because of a lack of real content speak for themselves.

[HomuraBL 851]

Ever since this rule was started, if I accidentally made a post with 99 or less characters, and it went through, the whole post would be blank. Even if I edit them up to be something like 300+ chars, they're still blank.

 

So, if I gather what you are saying, you are saying that if you post something with less then 100 characters, then try to post again, it still wouldn't work? Maybe you should contact someone about that.

[Ethan Pow 332]

Its a very good call, I have the similar issue on my own community when people post very small messages, I might use this setup as well.

[Teh Boi 113]

allofmywhy.jpg

I feel like writing an essay every time I write a comment. What about those threads where you have a simple, 3 word answer?

I feel like it should be 5 character minimum, like in most forums.

 

5char.

 

Trololol! I broke it.

 

Dohoho, you are killer.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Teh Boi

[Random User 249]

I hate it that so many are complaining about the complaints against the minimum character count. I'm sure the staff appreciate (mature) feedback, even if it is negative.

[HomuraBL 851]

I hate it that so many are complaining about the complaints against the minimum character count. I'm sure the staff appreciate (mature) feedback, even if it is negative.

 

"Feedback." Saying I don't like the character limit isn't mature feedback. If those people were able to offer a solution to the problem that would satisfy both people, then we would have feedback.

[Random User 249]

"Feedback." Saying I don't like the character limit isn't mature feedback. If those people were able to offer a solution to the problem that would satisfy both people, then we would have feedback.

 

Most cases I've seen in this topic against the change seem to present fair points.

[HomuraBL 851]

Most cases I've seen in this topic against the change seem to present fair points.

 

But there are also fair points to also having this to. So, really there probably needs to be some change in something.

[Random User 249]

But there are also fair points to also having this to. So, really there probably needs to be some change in something.

 

To be honest, I would prefer if they halved 100 for the minimum. 50 would be enough for the occasional short posts I make. I'm not sure how other people would like that, but I would.