Can we do something about posting for posts sake?

[D'Snowth]

I ate onions for breakfast.

 

[Vincent L]

I ate onions for breakfast.

Healthy diet.

 

[Mo Frackle]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think some of these 'simplistic' posts typically result from those who aren't totally familiar with the way discussion forums work. It seems to me that certain posters think of Muppet Central as a Facebook chatroom.

I've actually been wanting to bring this topic up myself, as it has become rather annoying. I haven't seen 'simplistic posts' on Muppet Central, or any discussion forum for that matter, until very recently. Back in my day...er I mean when I started to join discussion forums, we didn't have texting or Facebook. Now that we do have these advances (really not the term I want to use here, but hopefully you get my point), simplistic replies have become much more easier, and therefore much more common.

Maybe we should remind people the difference between "discuss" and "chat". I really don't mean to be rude to anybody who has a habit of "posting for posts sake". For all I know, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

I think the main issue that needs to be addressed is where it is appropriate to post "chat" and where it is not. Obviously there is no real discussion going on in that Crazy thread, just stupid chatting with short posts. There is a place and time for short, posts, and there is a place and time for discussion. I don't think we need any kind of arbitrary rule where you must post X words or it is considered spam. It just really needs to be addressed when and how it is appropriate to bring up old thread, and when and when it is appropriate to post short, stupid things.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Sorry guys I understand what you're saying but I stand where I was before on this. It's nearly impossible to legislate the "proper" way to post and I don't like singling people out on an open forum. I know no one is trying to hurt anyone's feelings but this kind of thing just ends up building up more and more. It reminds me of when I was in middle school and a teacher decided to have a "trial" where the kids were encouraged to discuss which kids annoyed them the most. It wasn't productive and ended up with a lot of hurt feelings. If we have a problem with members that's supposed to be what the report button is for. Or we just don't have to read posts we don't like.

 

[Drtooth]

The problem is, said member didn't do it once or twice. Said member has a history of the same behavior or drudging up old posts and posting head nods with nothing to add to the discussion.

But to reply to someone's question with an "I don't" isn't just unhelpful, it gets the original thread poster a false sense of hope when there's a new reply.

So there are 2 problems here.

1) the original problem. Bumping threads as old as 5, even 10 years old without any news or conversation. It's annoying with some threads, but it's down right frustrating when it's a thread about an old, abandoned project.

2) Answering questions no one asked him specifically just for the sake of posting.

Now, problem one can be solved easily by deleting threads with no activity for 5 years (though that's bound to be a huge headache to the mods). But the other problem is hard to deal with. I'd say the only way to deal with repetitive impolite internet behavior like that is for a mod to directly address the problem to the member, and if it persists, they get either a stern warning or an all out ban.

 

[The Count]

Erm... We don't need to go as far as deleting old threads when locking them closed will suffice just as well, but since what you're proposing is a time-lock for when a thread has gone without an additional reply for five years after the last post made, that would have to be something taken up with Phillip as he's the one who tinkers with the forum's computer coding. The only threads I would say should be exempt from such a time-lock are fanfics in order to allow authors to come back and complete unfinished works.

As far as the member in question... We have already cited them for this behavior in the past, and if it happens again, they will be duely notified and dealt with accordingly.
Thank you all for your concerns as it helps us moderate more effectively.

 

[Muppet fan 123]

I don't think old threads should be deleted.
But what should happen is, if a member bumps up and old thread with nothing productive to say, then that member's post should be deleted, which should take the thread off the What's New page.
Locking a thread becuase it's old is no good help. What if I have something that I want to add to it? If a thread is to be locked becuase it's old, you might as well just delete it.

 

[CaseytheMuppet]

I agree.



Haha. JK. That is always annoying. When I see a thread like that, I expect something grand, and then, its like, why did I just waste 30 seconds on this.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

I dont see whats wrong with a sticky explaining forum etiquette. Many forums have rules about when and where you can post certain things. Its not like we would be any different.