Many, many post no or a few posts, and a few post many posts

Should the memberships of those members who post no or merely a few posts be terminated?

  • Yes.
  • No.
  • I don’t care.
0 voters

Many ILP members post no or a few posts, and a few ILP members post many posts.

Look:


5009 ILP members (69.10%) have posted no or less than 10 posts. Not more than 1435 ILP members (19,80%) have posted 10-99 posts. But merely 805 ILP members (11.10%) have posted 100 or more than 100 posts.

That’s interesting, isn’t it?

:-k

I’d like to know what you think about it.

Reminds me of Zipf’s law, I wonder if it follows the same pattern. I would guess that nearly all* communities roughly track a similar distribution of participation rate.

*I’d expect communities that don’t would be what you might call ‘non-organic communities’:communities where some constraining mechanism encourages a different distribution pattern, e.g. an ongoing and dominant forum game that requires roughly equal participation (e.g. moves made in a game of Diplomacy), or a rotating roles that dictate post frequency (e.g. a rotating role for someone who moves a group through a set agenda), or some external motivation for participation (e.g. a class forum where participation is required for a grade).

It would also be interesting (but harder) to see how it works based on word count; I’m not particularly high on post count, but I think my total words and words/post rate is pretty high.

On the internet, 20% of all nodes attract 80% of all links. All this seems to obey the 80/20 rule.

According to my counter machine I have posted 5077 posts, but according to my section “user’s posts” I have posted 5081 posts. So the counter machine has not always done its job perfectly. If it had done its job perfectly, it would have shown me the number “5081”. In reality I have posted even more than 5081 posts, but those more posts have been deleted accidently by a moderator.

Anyone who registers here is automatically a member even if they have never posted or no longer use the site. Go and access the
most recent pages of new members and most of them will have zero posts and will never be seen again even though they are still
classed as members. But banning them would be a waste of time since you cannot ban someone from a site they are no longer on
This is such a trivial issue it cannot be taken seriously. Because how often a member posts or does not post is entirely up to them

There is some times a discrepancy in post counts because some
may be double posts or deletions so the figures will reflect this

Most of all ILP members have one post, as Alf has pointed out:

The more posts I have, the more errors the counter machine makes. :slight_smile:

And now: According to my counter machine I have posted 5078 posts, but according to my section “user’s posts” I have posted 5084 posts. So the counter machine has not always done its job perfectly. If it had done its job perfectly, it would have shown me the number “5084”. In reality I have posted even more than 5084 posts, but those more posts have been deleted accidently by a moderator.

That is funny. :slight_smile:

I believe the post counter does not count posts in certain forums (perhaps including the Meta forum, and almost certainly including Rant).

What I know for sure is that the subforum “Chamber of Debate” is one of those “problematic” subforums for the post counter.

Wait…my post in rant aren’t counted? That means I probably have more than James. I always knew he wasn’t better than me. I could feel it.

Most of those who have posted a few posts use these few posts as “sock puppets”.

Yes, certainly. Therefore my question: Should the memberships of those members who post no or merely a few posts be terminated? Till now there are 2 “yes”, 5 “no”, 2 “I don’t care” answers. :wink:

First of all, the number of posts says nothing about the quality of the posts.

You have often posted non-philosophical posts on this philosophy forum, while James has posted philosophical posts on this philosophy forum. This speaks in favor of James, because this forum is, or at least should be, a philosophy forum.

I don’t know, should the books of authors who do not or cannot write anymore be burned?

Yes, you don’t know. Who said anything about books or about people who are not able to write?

And because you addressed the people “who do not or cannot write anymore”: why should they write a book? They “do not or cannot write anymore” - these are your own words!

It’s an example in reply to your comment on peoples posts, that’s like advocating for censorship. I don’t think people’s words need to be deleted, books burned, art destroyed, etc.

I do occasionally delete accounts with 0 posts. I don’t know what the point of deleting accounts for users who have only a few posts would be, if they want to come back and pick it up shouldn’t they be allowed to?

Is the point just to show more accurate/interesting stats, e.g. monthly active users?

You have misunderstood it. It was no “advocating for censorship”.

Some of them are watchers. They make accounts to read rant Carleas.

I see nothing wrong with that. Rant is invisible to anyone without an account in order to exclude search engines and potential employers from concluding things about the site based on its contents. If someone puts in the effort to see it, they’ve assumed the risk.

If one subtracts another 20% from the 80% of the 100%, one obtains 4% of the 100%. Geometrically speaking, it looks like this:

0

1 Like