Well I have opened up a can of worms here, haven’t I? I’m not trying to point out metrics chasers, I’m just saying I think the metric is skewed, and it affects post quality in some cases.
Speaking of which, I hope nobody minds my change:
Gah! Did I do that? Oh that was sloppy.
In what specific way, and specifically… how? Can you explain it to me Like I Am Four Years Old, because I ain’t getting it.
(I am not disputing it, either, for the record, but I’m not getting it first.)
Edit: also the “Rule’s” in the title, I thought that was an in-joke of some kind about regulars ability to edit titles. It wasn’t? Seriously? Maybe I am overthinking this.
Why don’t we let this sit where it is for a day or two and see if anyone else has feedback. Maybe I explained what I was thinking poorly. I’m not sure I’m going to do much better at the moment.
I’m willing to assume it was.
Really? Where the hell do we start?
Not me, I just have a very undemanding job and a laptop
Are you sure that it’s your “posts read” metric that you need to worry about?
I’m in the situation where I’ve kept regular status ever since I got it, and there’s quite a few threads that I just ignore entirely- mostly the predictably controversial ones, but also some of the huge long runners that I can’t be doing with. I wouldn’t say it’s changed my behaviour in any negative way.
Apparently it was. I missed the joke first time around and thought I had mashed the keyboard. The title’s been monkeyed with twice now, so I suppose it’s “funny” to some.
I think you’re right, and I presumed the rule setting was chosen to support revenue and that the revenue was necessary (i.e. that the operation couldn’t keep the lights on as a true democratic cooperative).
Otherwise regular status could be based on election based on eligibility criteria explicitly chosen by existing regulars that are consistent with core principles and subject to some form of dragon review for hard cases.
Every now and then I worry about losing my status, and then I think it’s too much effort to bother to check what’s required and just keep doing what I’m doing.
I do make snarky comments for my own amusement far too much.
I just know you pay attention to a fair number of technical details other posters may not
Markup, and running out of likes. I used to use the stats to try to keep my like:post ratio up, but it’s harder to find the stats now, so I haven’t done it since 2015 at least. (I thought of the ratio as a simplistic indication of perceived quality.)
I guess it’s “nice” to have broken things out into multiple tabs, but it’s just too many clicks for me.
If anyone is worried about losing Regular status sure to not reading every thread/reply: I was off the site for a month (Feb), and never read any of the games threads (which tend to be the biggest). I never lost my Regular status, so either I’m a weird anomaly, or I’m that obsessive about reading all of the smaller threads, or it’s not that easy to lose Regular status.
This year, of all years, you have faith in the democratic process?
Did you see yet how Elizabeth Warren is schooling the GOP nominee on Twitter? It put a democratic smile on my face.
It seemed I got it when I started using the BBS over my RSS feed for the Boing posts.
I pretty much hit every one when it is marked new and skim down to through the current comments.
I don’t actually keep up with a lot of those, mostly the one that will be popcorn worthy or where I actually make a comment is what I will stick with so Imagowith visits/reading over posting.
Do you think she’ll make up with Clinton?
I dunno. HRC needs to get with the program and isn’t.
Sanders still has the initiative and momentum, and there are also opportunities for Warren to help Drumpf realize he’s in the varsity game now.
HRC could build credibility with Warren maybe by channeling her inner 1992, pre health-care-reform-defeat days.
And the media still aren’t figuring out how to do journalism instead of revenue. Aren’t they just trolling for clicks?
Do you mean that people will rush through a thread instead of reading everything in order to keep their regular status, meaning their engagement isn’t deep, but shallow?