is there anybody on these forums who is Prolific (8000 posts and over)?

I believe when the system totalises the "posts" it does not mean a participant has actually posted that many posts; 'posts' here, I believe, includes also the number of threads visited but no post posted.

In my case, I know I've definitely not posted 500 odd posts

I am pretty sure that the post count DOES total all the posts you have made, not posts visited. You would be surprised how fast they add up.

JKogas is 6000+ posts.

Actually it is the number of posts made, not visited. I believe the member with the largest aount of posts is JKogas with 6340 currently.

I look at my growing number and wonder: how many of those posts had any value? Hmmm..I don't think the number has any value...but if there was a way to rate posts and divide by total number...I think that would really say more about the overall quality of any particular contributor.

Quote:

---

I believe when the system totalises the "posts" it does not mean a participant has actually posted that many posts; 'posts' here, I believe, includes also the number of threads visited but no post posted.

In my case, I know I've definitely not posted 500 odd posts

---

Gauging a person's worth/quality towards the website by their number of posts is as logical as gauging a martial artists quality by their belt color only. In other words, don't do it.

Apologies. It was not meant to gauge the individual...just reflecting on the posts and how the forum is built via contributions...or torn down.

Reminds me of a quote by John Buchan:

'You think that a wall as solid as the earth separates civilization from barbarism. I tell you the division is a thread, a sheet of glass. A touch here, a push there, and you bring back the reign of Saturn.'

I like the quote.

My comment wasn't directed directly at you, but the concept of ranking members by amount of posts.

JoelM -

I think Harlan was refering to the idea of rating people by the amount of QUALITY posts they do, not just by raw numbers.

I don't see how that would be possible, though. Vote on every post? Seems too difficult.

Too late...already 'do it'. As a moderator, you may have to wade through a lot of posts, but I filter what I read by applying criteria. I only look at certain forums for content, and usually look at the contributions of the members that have 'made it' to my address book. Heck...I have even used the 'Ignore' feature.

The number of an individual's posts mean nothing to me...but I do value the intellectual caliber of the posts.

Quote:

---

Gauging a person's worth/quality towards the website by their number of posts is as logical as gauging a martial artists quality by their belt color only. In other words, don't do it.

---