View previous topic | View next topic

QI forums: views to replies ratio

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next


Should QI forum posts be replied to?
Yes
33%
 33%  [ 2 ]
No
50%
 50%  [ 3 ]
Dont know
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Dont care
16%
 16%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 6

jn1057
1244386.  Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:05 am Reply with quote

Having just posted an enquiry in the green room, i noticed there in an option to look at the unanswered posts - currently 608 of them. First 50 of these posts have a total of 9544 views without having been replied to.

While i accept that not all of those posts warrant a reply, surely nearly 10,000 people could have said at least something in response?|

[Paradoxically, 10 minutes into having this post, 27 people have viewed it, none have replied, none have recorded an opinion in the poll.]

With this post, i look forward to your replies!!!

 
Jenny
1244392.  Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:13 am Reply with quote

Not all posts need an answer. Sometimes an interested grunt is sufficient.

People who post once and then never reappear or engage in conversation may well not be responded to.

Readers are free to answer a post or not as they see fit - how would you enforce a 'should'?! I answer a post if I have something to say about it, and I don't answer it if I have nothing of any interest to add, and I am on here every day.

 
jn1057
1244399.  Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:17 am Reply with quote

Grunt, interested.

"Should", in this context wasn't intended as legally enforceable on pain of some convoluted deferred punishment. "Should" was meant as "Should responses be expected by the post author, should readers reply in order to evoke further discussion, should tangential replies be given, etc".

BTW, this post is now at 68 views, 1 comemt, 1 vote.

 
dstarfire
1250383.  Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:38 pm Reply with quote

I think it may be a seasonal thing. When show is airing, many people come here to talk/rant about it, suggest corrections, etc.. I don't think we have a large enough populace of regular users to maintain any real activity off-season.

I generally don't comment because I don't want to say something stupid (too late, I know), or just don't have anything helpful/useful to add.

 
PDR
1250386.  Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:14 am Reply with quote

<uninterested grunt>

PDR

 
Alfred E Neuman
1250414.  Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:05 am Reply with quote

jn1057 wrote:
Should responses be expected by the post author, should readers reply in order to evoke further discussion, should tangential replies be given, etc


So I can post any old crap and there is a duty on the community to humour me? Seriously, if you actually believe that, then why haven't you been working through those unanswered posts doing the right thing? One a day since you started this thread and you'd have let 10 000 people off the hook. Of course, that opens the door for someone else to come along and accuse us of being derelict in our duty because only one person replied.

To me, if a few thousand people view some posts and no one bothers to reply to any of them, that tells me more about the quality of the posts than the forum members.

 
PDR
1250415.  Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:12 am Reply with quote

<vaguely approving grunt>

PDR

 
tetsabb
1250435.  Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:48 am Reply with quote

Yeah. 😉

 
Paul-R
1259239.  Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:11 am Reply with quote

I have been a member of boards where lurkers are encouraged to reply either by the carrot or (on one occasion) the stick. These always result in lots of boring, pointless posts and well over 50% of the active members leaving the board.

 
GuyBarry
1259262.  Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:31 am Reply with quote

Paul-R wrote:
I have been a member of boards where lurkers are encouraged to reply either by the carrot or (on one occasion) the stick.


How does that work then? The "carrot" would mean giving some specific incentive to lurkers if they reply, which I suppose is just about possible, although I've never been on a forum that gave out money to posters or anything like that.

But the "stick"? If you don't know who the lurkers are, how can you possibly punish them for not posting? It's fairly routine for administrators to remove the accounts of people who haven't posted for a set length of time. I don't see what other measures could be taken.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1259302.  Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:22 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
But the "stick"? If you don't know who the lurkers are, how can you possibly punish them for not posting? It's fairly routine for administrators to remove the accounts of people who haven't posted for a set length of time. I don't see what other measures could be taken.


Block access so that they can't read parts of the forum?

 
Paul-R
1259340.  Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:43 am Reply with quote

The "stick" on the site I was talking about was to limit their access to the main board and spam board.

Carrot is easy, varied from giving extra posting privileges, allowing access to "secret" boards, allowing links in signature, and on one board, actual physical prizes.

 
Jenny
1260537.  Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:57 pm Reply with quote

Sounds like far too much hard work for my tastes.

 
crissdee
1260562.  Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:22 pm Reply with quote

And with all due respect to the many good friends I have made on these boards, and the hard work that goes into making it all happen, it seems to be placing rather too much value on posting stuff than it really merits.

 
fwk
1260571.  Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:51 pm Reply with quote

Some people can have inflated post numbers if they regularly post in 'One Word Story' and 'Word Associations!', naming no fwks. I think some forums block off certain boards until you've made a small number of posts to fence in spambots and make them easier to discover.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group