Forum Addiction

[David]

MOVED TO THE RIGHT TOPIC NOW! Apologies...

Since Gary and I set this forum up (at around 8am this morning) we've had approximately 14 hours' posting time - and I know the site was pretty quiet until 10am, so maybe 12 hours.

How on earth has anyone got time to write 50+ posts on a forum in that time, and not get bored, goggle-eyed, or suffer from Repetitive Strain Injury? I remain absolutely amazed.

The forum is set to stop anyone posting more than one message a minute, maybe it should be more than that, to try and calm the beans a wee bit - anyone disagree? [ducking now]

[saintsam90]

woops :?:

[Jimbo]

yeah i have to agree I have no idea what people post about. to post 50+ posts on only 20 odd topics in a few hours is a good effort

[David]

Meaning no personal offence, I think the second post in this thread answered Jimbo's point above!

[Rodgers]

Am sorry but i want it removed, i can understand why you have it but its annoying :shock:

[David]

Absolutely no chance, I'm afraid. First of all there's no need to post that much stuff so quickly IMHO - but more importantly it's there to stop spam-robots flooding the forum with automated rubbish, which I've seen on other forums too often!

It's not ideal to be honest, but sadly necessary.

[blueheaven]

I completely agree with David on this. What possible need is there for people to be posting more than one message inside a minute? If people were being a wee bit more reasoned in their use of the forum, then maybe they wouldn't notice this limitation anyway - I mean, let's face it, is there really any need for anyone to be making one word posts along the lines of "ken", "woops", "***", etc??

Sorry to start moaning so early, but frankly I'm stunned at the way the forum's being used since it was launched less than 24 hours ago. :shock:

[Calinho]

Isnt there something you can do that a post has to be a minimum amount of letters? i think that would be the best hing, so people are actually saying something and not just text speak

[David]

Isnt there something you can do that a post has to be a minimum amount of letters? i think that would be the best hing, so people are actually saying something and not just text speak
Yes, there is, actually - but it also applies to PMs because they're also part of the posting system - which might not be so ideal.

The time thing is still there for good reasons, but minimum post size is worth looking at.

[Calinho]

Isnt there something you can do that a post has to be a minimum amount of letters? i think that would be the best hing, so people are actually saying something and not just text speak
Yes, there is, actually - but it also applies to PMs because they're also part of the posting system - which might not be so ideal.

The time thing is still there for good reasons, but minimum post size is worth looking at.

maybe do both, and with effects to the PM thing, if you cant have one and not the other, just get people to fill pm's up with a random letter, but if anyone does that in posts issue a warning?

[saintsam90]

calm down folks right i went a lttle bit crazy i know not to do it again

[David]

maybe do both, and with effects to the PM thing, if you cant have one and not the other, just get people to fill pm's up with a random letter, but if anyone does that in posts issue a warning?
I'll see if it can be turned off for PMs - might need a bit of customised code, but that's not too difficult thankfully! The last thing we want is random text in posts, just to fill up a quota (people will get mightily confused too).

Only the first day though, I'm astonished the new forum has been this busy so quickly, as Gary said above.

[Calinho]

maybe do both, and with effects to the PM thing, if you cant have one and not the other, just get people to fill pm's up with a random letter, but if anyone does that in posts issue a warning?
I'll see if it can be turned off for PMs - might need a bit of customised code, but that's not too difficult thankfully! The last thing we want is random text in posts, just to fill up a quota (people will get mightily confused too).

Only the first day though, I'm astonished the new forum has been this busy so quickly, as Gary said above.

Well maybe a big post explaining, if your going to post, make sure its something worth reading?

[David]

calm down folks right i went a lttle bit crazy i know not to do it again
Nobody's getting at you personally (tried to make that clear earlier) - this has been a problem on the BH forum and the old official site before that (and the mailing lists before that), going back 10 years now.

Gary and I were hoping that the forum might get a little less cluttered with fewer (and more reasoned) posts, and invite more people to join in. There are lots of people who don't post in fear of their point getting lost amongst a lot of 'noise', and that's not a good thing. I've spoken to three long-standing forum posters since teatime, who said they wouldn't come near this one unless it got a bit more sensible!

[Real Madrid]

You would be surprised at how many people were upset in the queue yesterday when they thought there would be no forum

[saintsam90]

i appologise

[Calinho]

i appologise

Another prime example there sam? does your school teach basic english? ;)

[saintsam90]

im sorry but no i go to the academy they fail to teach us basic english

[chopper]

i appologise

Another prime example there sam? does your school teach basic english? ;)

Oh the cheek of it young Calinho - I hope Sam is there to remind you of this everytime your grammar is less than the impeccable standard you preach :wink: :twisted:

[Calinho]

i appologise

Another prime example there sam? does your school teach basic english? ;)

Oh the cheek of it young Calinho - I hope Sam is there to remind you of this everytime your grammar is less than the impeccable standard you preach :wink: :twisted:

Mis-type on my keyboard ;)

[Watty]

Is there any way you can just delete the post count bit? I've been on other forums where this is the case, it just sits at Zilch, seems to keep members who just post for the hell of it to a minimum. RIP the 1000 Post Club :(

[Calinho]

Is there any way you can just delete the post count bit? I've been on other forums where this is the case, it just sits at Zilch, seems to keep members who just post for the hell of it to a minimum. RIP the 1000 Post Club :(

Brilliant idea IMO

[Hazel1884]

Is there any way you can just delete the post count bit? I've been on other forums where this is the case, it just sits at Zilch, seems to keep members who just post for the hell of it to a minimum. RIP the 1000 Post Club :(

Or we could delete all the one word posts and keep the useless ones to a minimum. But then again that may cause too much work!

Remember, Quality not Quantity!

[Jimbo]

Is there any way you can just delete the post count bit? I've been on other forums where this is the case, it just sits at Zilch, seems to keep members who just post for the hell of it to a minimum. RIP the 1000 Post Club :(

its a controversial idea, an english football site i know has just removed the number of posts from the display, it appears on you profile bit but not on the thread its self, it meet a fair amount of resistance it has to be said but in the main i do agree with the idea of it. although it would remove an element of interest as to who will get to 1000 first etc, (all i know is it wont be me). maybe you cound make a new scale for the quality rather than the quantity, ie a sort of 5 star scale. start off at 3 say and you can go up or down depending on what the mods/admin think of you general woffle

[Saintkev]

I think the post counter is needless, it's Cal and similar who seem to think there's a race to get to X posts, some seem obsessed with it, and quite blatently build posts and it get's infuriating... The simplist solution may be an army of good moderators who can nip it in the bud early doors and I think that's what we could be building up.

[Jimbo]

you volentering to moderate tis forum then kev?? :D

[Watty]

I say get rid of the post counter if at all possible, being a member of a forum is'nt a competition to see who can post the most afterall.

[Saintkev]

you volentering to moderate tis forum then kev?? :D

I don't mind moderating whatever. Would you like me to?

[David]

Regarding the post count. I don't see any harm in removing it, the 'race' element has always made me groan, to be quite honest.

I think since the BH forum had so many technical troubles recently, most people accept that having a forum at all is the main thing here, and other than a bit of over-excitement from a couple of folk on Saturday, there shouldn't be too much nonsense.

If I could automatically remove 'text message' type posts, "me too" type responses, etc, then I would - but one-word replies are very common in man-of-the-match voting, so it's a bit tricky!

Won't be doing anything with the post counter until the weekend at least, so let the debate continue...

[blueheaven]

I personally think it would be a shame to have to remove the post-counter just because it's abused by a small minority. It's really meant to be there as a bit of fun to see how many messages folk have posted - I think it's a nice thing to be able to see, but it's when people start to see it as a race that it becomes a problem. I really do think that if it was removed, it would be allowing the minority to spoil part of the forum for the majority. Maybe we should set up a poll on it?

It's fine saying that the solution is to have moderators deleting posts made by post-builders, but what's the criteria we're going to use to know what posts to delete? Once a moderator starts wading in and deleting posts, you soon find that it has to happen all the time because you've set a precedent, so it's something I very rarely did over at the BH forum. It's because of issues like this that I think this new forum is going to need some properly laid-out rules for people to follow if it's going to work properly with multiple moderators, but I'll try to post something about that a bit later on. As Dave says, at these things can be settled over time but at the moment the priority is just having a forum running at all.

[Watty]

I would certainly be on the side of removing the post counter but i reckon I would be in the minority, if a poll were conducted i reckon it would only serve to confirm this. It's maybe more a decision the site admin need to make rather than one to be made by the general consensus of the forum members.

[chopper]

I would certainly be on the side of removing the post counter but i reckon I would be in the minority, if a poll were conducted i reckon it would only serve to confirm this. It's maybe more a decision the site admin need to make rather than one to be made by the general consensus of the forum members.

I would agree with you Watty - however, it wouldn't be the first time in the shor time this site has been up and running that I have been in the minority :wink:

[Kevin]

I personally think it would be a shame to have to remove the post-counter just because it's abused by a small minority. It's really meant to be there as a bit of fun to see how many messages folk have posted - I think it's a nice thing to be able to see, but it's when people start to see it as a race that it becomes a problem. I really do think that if it was removed, it would be allowing the minority to spoil part of the forum for the majority. Maybe we should set up a poll on it?

It's fine saying that the solution is to have moderators deleting posts made by post-builders, but what's the criteria we're going to use to know what posts to delete? Once a moderator starts wading in and deleting posts, you soon find that it has to happen all the time because you've set a precedent, so it's something I very rarely did over at the BH forum. It's because of issues like this that I think this new forum is going to need some properly laid-out rules for people to follow if it's going to work properly with multiple moderators, but I'll try to post something about that a bit later on. As Dave says, at these things can be settled over time but at the moment the priority is just having a forum running at all.

Agree Gary. What it needs is some good editing to get rid of the multiple single word posts which only serve to annoy folk. Personally, I get really fed up with having to wade through posts such as "why" - "why not" - "because" - "yeah" - "right" and so on and so forth. If these start apperaing in the Matchday Music then they will be wheeked out straight away!! :evil:

[chopper]

Can we get a spell chequer pleeze to help get rid of txt spk and stuff like that :?: :roll:

[Kevin]

Can we get a spell chequer pleeze to help get rid of txt spk and stuff like that :?: :roll:

That was probably your best spelled post Chops, me old cocker :***:

[Saintkev]

Personally, I get really fed up with having to wade through posts such as "why" - "why not" - "because" - "yeah" - "right" and so on and so forth. If these start apperaing in the Matchday Music then they will be wheeked out straight away!! :evil:

Why?

:wink:

[Saintkev]

Can the minute delay be changed for editing a post you've just made?

Am loving the fact that you cannot type Dundee without it defaulting to a swearie stylee!

[David]

Minute delay - not currently, just type your edit nice and slowly!

Spell checker - already had a go at this. First attempt converted "r u going 2 the game" to the proper words, but it also converted a score line to "Dundee too Saints 1" which wasn't quite right...

We don't want to be removing posts from the forums though, the hope with this new site (and multiple moderators) was that the group would soon clamp down on people who post rubbish. It's already happened this past weekend at the start of the 'ChitChat' forum.

The short posts are an annoyance but I'd rather they stayed on the site so enough people moan about them and get it stopped! Gary's post earlier was spot on, we need to establish how things get moderated before we start doing it... and not have separate rules for each topic.

[Calinho]

Are we not allowed image signatures?

[David]

Are we not allowed image signatures?
Yes, other users have them (Hazel1884, for one).

[Phil]

Are we not allowed image signatures?
make sure in your profile, in the sig section, that "bbcode" is set to "on"? :?

Anyway, I don't see a need for removing that 1 minute time limit. I'm not a big poster.
But I think the minute delay on editing posts should be removed. I often make small mistakes which I have to edit straight away, as to not make myself look stupid. :P


Also I was beggining to get worried, when BH wasn't loading for the past few days. I see everyone has been hiding out here though. :P

[Calinho]

Are we not allowed image signatures?
make sure in your profile, in the sig section, that "bbcode" is set to "on"? :?

Anyway, I don't see a need for removing that 1 minute time limit. I'm not a big poster.
But I think the minute delay on editing posts should be removed. I often make small mistakes which I have to edit straight away, as to not make myself look stupid. :P


Also I was beggining to get worried, when BH wasn't loading for the past few days. I see everyone has been hiding out here though. :P

BBCode is on

[Phil]

BBCode is on
Ok then, it must either be over a limit (I don't see a limit on sig sizes though) or becasue of that space in it "arsenal chick"

Rename the pic so that there is no space in it, then re-upload.
Could be the site you are uploading to also :? try http://www.imageshack.us

If all else fails, try a new sig :wink:

[shandon saint]

Are we not allowed image signatures?

could it be that it doesn't like the .png file name? I had tried to post a picture in another thread with that file extension and it didn't like it.
Try re-saving the file with a .jpg extension....

[Kevin]

No, it's as Phil says. Cal has included a space in the name wh9ich, if you copy the address to Windows Explorer, corrests it and replaces the space with %20

[David]

could it be that it doesn't like the .png file name? I had tried to post a picture in another thread with that file extension and it didn't like it. Try re-saving the file with a .jpg extension....
PNG images are fine. It's very likely to do with the file name, as Kevin says - images (and any other links) should have spaces 'encoded' or the forum software might reject them. The image itself is fine.

[Kevin]

The image itself is fine.

I think that is stretching the truth a bit, it is an Aresnal picture after all.......... :?

[Calinho]

The image itself is fine.

I think that is stretching the truth a bit, it is an Aresnal picture after all.......... :?

speaking of which i got the lovely home shirt today ;)

[chopper]

speaking of which i got the lovely home shirt today ;)

What, with its gold lettering?? :***: :P

[Kevin]

The image itself is fine.

I think that is stretching the truth a bit, it is an Aresnal picture after all.......... :?

speaking of which i got the lovely home shirt today ;)

Looks like Hearts reserve shirt, mind, that is about Arse Nils limit........

[Calinho]

The image itself is fine.

I think that is stretching the truth a bit, it is an Aresnal picture after all.......... :?

speaking of which i got the lovely home shirt today ;)

Looks like Hearts reserve shirt, mind, that is about Arse Nils limit........

hmm, you dont watch much Arsenal do you

[Hazel1884]

Are we not allowed image signatures?
Yes, other users have them (Hazel1884, for one).

Indeed i do. A rather fine young speciman too! :roll: :wink:

[pezza70]

I always thought Berkamp filled out a gunners shirt nicely

The big girls blouse and his fear of flying

Must of been cold the day Berkamp posed for that photo :wink:

[25e Ainslie Place]

C'mon The Mushrooms!

[duncan08]

i agree :razz: