Do posters pay more attention to volume posters?

[FrDrake]

This isn't about hurt feelings or lost self-worth due to being ignored as others have suggested.  It is about building an inclusive online community that promotes dialogue.  The quality of the post should matter more than the quantity of posts.   When new posters are ignored it discourages them from posting again and you get what you have now on this board....probably 10-20 posters make 70-80% of the posts.

  Just curious, but exactly what do you mean about posters being ignored? Do they start threads that never get responded to? Do threads die after they make a post because nobody else visits the thread?

The fact that this thread is at six pages long and counting proves two things.   One, that posters are not completely ignored here since this has gotten lots of interest.  And two, there are posters on this thread that agree with the original question....Are high volume posters more likely to reply to other high volume posters who they 'know.' 

This just proves it is a valid issue.  Neither side is 100% right or wrong.  Rather, some people think there are too many ping-pong conversasions where high volume posters respond to each other much more than to others and hand out tommy points to people they know either in real life or via the site.

No one's feelings are hurt by this.  It just creates a crummy environment for new ideas and in my opinion it discourages some new members from sticking with the board.  I don't have stats to back this up cuz I'm not a mod.  But if we weren't allowed to make posts that are unsupported by stats, then 90% of the opinions on this site would never see the light of day.

The issue is certainly not exclusive to celticsblog either.

Honest question, is it an issue or just the way the world works? That when joining a group, you may at first be overlooked because of the routine of established members?

Again, why do you and others assume this has to do with hurt feelings or how I view the freaking world?  I'm trying to post intelligent questions and comments about the original question which has to do with creating an online community and how we as posters influence that community.  

[FrDrake]

Also, why does it say I have 669 TPs? 

I had six this morning.

[Roy H.]

Honest question, is it an issue or just the way the world works? That when joining a group, you may at first be overlooked because of the routine of established members?

Again, why do you and others assume this has to do with hurt feelings or how I view the freaking world?  I'm trying to post intelligent questions and comments about the original question which has to do with creating an online community and how we as posters influence that community.  

KC didn't say anything about hurt feelings or your world view, though.  He posed an equally valid question, I thought.  If this is something unique to CelticsBlog, that says something.  If, however, it's something that is simply indicative of the way the world at large operates, then it says something else.

[dark_lord]

posters with lower totals are agreeing with the op's observation, while high volume posters and mods are saying the opposite.

 i say the truth lies somewhere in between (call me capt. obvious).

dont chastise the op or tell him he is wrong, etc.  instead provide words of encouragement and make him feel more involved, rather than pushing him away.  

[dark_lord]

Also, why does it say I have 669 TPs? 

I had six this morning.

bc a mod decided to boost u up

[KCattheStripe]

This isn't about hurt feelings or lost self-worth due to being ignored as others have suggested.  It is about building an inclusive online community that promotes dialogue.  The quality of the post should matter more than the quantity of posts.   When new posters are ignored it discourages them from posting again and you get what you have now on this board....probably 10-20 posters make 70-80% of the posts.

  Just curious, but exactly what do you mean about posters being ignored? Do they start threads that never get responded to? Do threads die after they make a post because nobody else visits the thread?

The fact that this thread is at six pages long and counting proves two things.   One, that posters are not completely ignored here since this has gotten lots of interest.  And two, there are posters on this thread that agree with the original question....Are high volume posters more likely to reply to other high volume posters who they 'know.' 

This just proves it is a valid issue.  Neither side is 100% right or wrong.  Rather, some people think there are too many ping-pong conversasions where high volume posters respond to each other much more than to others and hand out tommy points to people they know either in real life or via the site.

No one's feelings are hurt by this.  It just creates a crummy environment for new ideas and in my opinion it discourages some new members from sticking with the board.  I don't have stats to back this up cuz I'm not a mod.  But if we weren't allowed to make posts that are unsupported by stats, then 90% of the opinions on this site would never see the light of day.

The issue is certainly not exclusive to celticsblog either.

Honest question, is it an issue or just the way the world works? That when joining a group, you may at first be overlooked because of the routine of established members?

Again, why do you and others assume this has to do with hurt feelings or how I view the freaking world?  I'm trying to post intelligent questions and comments about the original question which has to do with creating an online community and how we as posters influence that community.  

Ummm, I don't think I said anything about hurt feelings or assuming it was how you viewed the world. I was genuinely asking if it was an issue that newer or less prolific posters are being ignored because A) It's been awhile since I was new and B) my posting style is that I badger people until they respond.

[FrDrake]

posters with lower totals are agreeing with the op's observation, while high volume posters and mods are saying the opposite.

 i say the truth lies somewhere in between (call me capt. obvious).

dont chastise the op or tell him he is wrong, etc.  instead provide words of encouragement and make him feel more involved, rather than pushing him away.  

TP!

[Roy H.]

Also, why does it say I have 669 TPs?  

I had six this morning.

It's another inside joke, I'd say.  In the past, when people have mentioned their low TP total as a source of grief (or whatever word you pick), posters and staff members have sometimes tended to "blow up" that member's TP total.

As a new member, I'd encourage you to read through some of the old threads in the Community and Comments & Remarks forum.  Between the two, it gives you a basic (if skewed) view of the history of the site, and most importantly, the members.  

[KCattheStripe]

Also, why does it say I have 669 TPs? 

I had six this morning.

It's another inside joke, I'd say.  In the past, when people have mentioned their low TP total as a source of grief (or whatever word you pick), posters have sometimes tended to "blow up" that member's TP total.

As a new member, I'd encourage you to read through some of the old threads in the Community and Comments & Remarks forum.  Between the two, it gives you a basic (if skewed) view of the history of the site, and most importantly, the members. 

Who are pretty skewed to begin with.

[Fafnir]

posters with lower totals are agreeing with the op's observation, while high volume posters and mods are saying the opposite.

 i say the truth lies somewhere in between (call me capt. obvious).

dont chastise the op or tell him he is wrong, etc.  instead provide words of encouragement and make him feel more involved, rather than pushing him away.  

Actually a lot of people have given their views, most of which don't fall into your dichotomy. Some said it isn't true, some said its true get used to it, others gave explanations as to why it happens, etc...

I don't think people are pushing him away either, we're having a conversation with him. Though when he draws conclusions that are incorrect (about who posts, how much people post and how active the community is) I've disagreed and pointed out the errors.

I don't see whats wrong with disagreeing with someone.

[FrDrake]

Also, why does it say I have 669 TPs? 

I had six this morning.

It's another inside joke, I'd say.  In the past, when people have mentioned their low TP total as a source of grief (or whatever word you pick), posters have sometimes tended to "blow up" that member's TP total.

As a new member, I'd encourage you to read through some of the old threads in the Community and Comments & Remarks forum.  Between the two, it gives you a basic (if skewed) view of the history of the site, and most importantly, the members. 

I actually didn't complain about TPs.  I said I don't care.  If someone can give me my six TPs that would be appreciated.

Also, I'm not a new poster.  I just lurk a lot and take time off.  I've been reading this site for at least two years.

KCattheStripe: I misinterpreted your question.  My bad.

[nickagneta]

And for a really good read check out the "You know you've been spending too much time on Celticsblog when..." thread.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=10084.0

Brilliant thread.  

[Fafnir]

Also, why does it say I have 669 TPs?  

I had six this morning.

It's another inside joke, I'd say.  In the past, when people have mentioned their low TP total as a source of grief (or whatever word you pick), posters have sometimes tended to "blow up" that member's TP total.

As a new member, I'd encourage you to read through some of the old threads in the Community and Comments & Remarks forum.  Between the two, it gives you a basic (if skewed) view of the history of the site, and most importantly, the members.  

I actually didn't complain about TPs.  I said I don't care.  If someone can give me my six TPs that would be appreciated.

Also, I'm not a new poster.  I just lurk a lot and take time off.  I've been reading this site for at least two years.

KCattheStripe: I misinterpreted your question.  My bad.

You also said that your lack of TPs proved your point. Which has a clear implication that you'd have more if your posts were paid as much attention as other posters.

[barefacedmonk]

And for a really good read check out the "You know you've been spending too much time on Celticsblog when..." thread.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=10084.0

Brilliant thread.  

[FrDrake]

Also, why does it say I have 669 TPs?  

I had six this morning.

It's another inside joke, I'd say.  In the past, when people have mentioned their low TP total as a source of grief (or whatever word you pick), posters have sometimes tended to "blow up" that member's TP total.

As a new member, I'd encourage you to read through some of the old threads in the Community and Comments & Remarks forum.  Between the two, it gives you a basic (if skewed) view of the history of the site, and most importantly, the members.  

I actually didn't complain about TPs.  I said I don't care.  If someone can give me my six TPs that would be appreciated.

Also, I'm not a new poster.  I just lurk a lot and take time off.  I've been reading this site for at least two years.

KCattheStripe: I misinterpreted your question.  My bad.

You also said that your lack of TPs proved your point. Which has a clear implication that you'd have more if your posts were paid as much attention as other posters.

This is ridiculous.  By giving me 669 TPs with 120 or so posts that mod is mocking me.  Why?  Because some mod disagreed with me or thought my post was whiney?  TPs are stupid.  give me zero.  I don't care.

I am less likely than before to post outside of this thread because a stupid mod misinterpreted a post of mine and decided to deride me publicly in a way on this board that I cannot control.  How is that OK?