Post count = knowledge ?

[miss fortune]

a common pheromone, that's all I got :/

that sounds more worth discussing than NTs getting thier squishy little feelings hurt!


you all know I love you dearly, but the chance to poke fun at NTs being emotional was too delightful to pass up!

 

[INTJMom]

It looks to me that in many situations post count people see as amount of knoledge. (what is not true)
In many cases person with 56 posts will be submissive toward the person that has 3700 posts.
Also person with large number of posts will think that he/she is more likely to be right, even in things that have nothing to do with MBTI simply because they have more posts. (there are alway exceptions)


Do others agree with this observation and what do you think about it?

I don't agree with your observation.
High post count can be an indicator of very many things,
and I think people know that.

 

[miss fortune]

^ listen to the Mom- she knows much!

 

[entropie]

That's like with the boys giving away easily their secrets, with how many girls they slept, only this time, the post counter does not lie

 

[miss fortune]

That's like with the boys giving away easily their secrets, with how many girls they slept, only this time, the post counter does not lie

*turns away from making out with TypologyCentral*

you calling me a site slut?!

 

[entropie]

side slut, that sounds nasty

 

[miss fortune]

side slut, that sounds nasty

*tries to imagine exactly what a side slut would be and gets derailed pondering the stigmata... the combination of the two is nauseating *


I'm going to hell aren't I

 

[entropie]

ouh I go to bed 4.21 am here and enough "who has got the greatest" for today.

If you want to watch something really special try this:

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrq4MWZYaYA"]!! May 8 !![/YOUTUBE]

gn8

 

[Haight]

Several posts moved to the following location:

Riddle Me This . . .

 

[Totenkindly]

It looks to me that in many situations post count people see as amount of knoledge. (what is not true)
In many cases person with 56 posts will be submissive toward the person that has 3700 posts.

Wait, I have 12000+ posts here ... I think that makes me Official Forum Postwhore.

Where's this respect you're talking about????
Should I be getting more respect?

That would be cool.

Also person with large number of posts will think that he/she is more likely to be right, even in things that have nothing to do with MBTI simply because they have more posts. (there are alway exceptions)

Yes, I'm one of them.

Do others agree with this observation and what do you think about it?

see above.

 

[Dali]

I'm trying to get my post count up so people will like me.

Me too.

 

[Synarch]

This is pretty simple, if we slice it up.

1. High post count over a shorter period represents higher frequency of posting. Either a high quantity of brief posts, or an amazing amount of time dedicated to the forum (which could indicate many things, including many negative things), or both.
2. High post count over a longer period represents sustained involvement in the forum.
3. Low post count over a shorter period represents casual posting, but indicates nothing in terms of how much the member reads or lurks.
4. Low post count over a longer period likely indicates a lurker.

None of these things really mean anything with relation to content or quality. Someone who posts infrequently like Bluewing possesses a high ratio of signal to noise while a more prolific poster like Jack Flak may engage mostly in brief responses. So, one may safely assume that a newer member with a large number of posts is unlikely to be posting with a high degree of information content, though it is certainly possible based on the frequency of posts. Just unlikely.

With regard to questions of social status, I would expect that the more involved you are in the forum, the more status you will have socially, provided you present a convincing case for likability. The extraverted approach to sociability is more scalable in that you are conducting your social intercourse in public and so may necessarily influence people both in the future (as they read in the archives) and in a broadcast fashion to all members at once. More introverted members are likely to engage in their social relationships in a more discreet fashion through PM's, reps, visitor messages, etc. so their impact will necessarily be more limited when posting quality is equivalent.

Anecdotally, before I became a member, I lurked infrequently as a guest for about a year and a half or more. In that time, I became familiar with a few members who posted memorable or informative posts, such as Maverick and Bluewing or The Liquid Laser.

 

[Jack Flak]

None of these things really mean anything with relation to content or quality. Someone who posts infrequently like Bluewing possesses a high ratio of signal to noise while a more prolific poster like Jack Flak may engage mostly in brief responses. So, one may safely assume that a newer member with a large number of posts is unlikely to be posting with a high degree of information content, though it is certainly possible based on the frequency of posts. Just unlikely.

Where did you learn...Anything?

Please explain to me how taking five pages to make no clearly defined statement is akin to a high "signal to noise ratio." I propose that it's exactly the opposite.

^I hope you don't have too much trouble deciphering my short post.

 

[Synarch]

Where did you learn...Anything?

Please explain to me how taking five pages to make no clearly defined statement is akin to a high "signal to noise ratio." I propose that it's exactly the opposite.

^I hope you don't have too much trouble deciphering my short post.

I love you, Jack.

 

[01011010]

Definitely not. It just means they post often.

 

[fleurdujour]

Definitely not. Disregarding everything else (whether or not a person prefers to lurk or posts a lot or moderately), the join date has a BIG influence--more than anything else. If you've been a member for 2 days and you're compared to one that has been a member for over a year, well then obviously there's going to be a HUGE difference in your post count that is impossible to correlate to knowledge.

 

[mlittrell]

It looks to me that in many situations post count people see as amount of knoledge. (what is not true)
In many cases person with 56 posts will be submissive toward the person that has 3700 posts.
Also person with large number of posts will think that he/she is more likely to be right, even in things that have nothing to do with MBTI simply because they have more posts. (there are alway exceptions)


Do others agree with this observation and what do you think about it?

i might have already responded but i think you are mostly to completely right. personally, if someone has 50 posts and makes a relevant point then i have just as much respect for them then someone who makes a good point and has 3000 posts. i think post count is dumb really. people might be more bias towards your point of view if you have 1000+ posts. and really all those posts could be crap but people will just listen anyway because of the post count. its stupid really. oh well lol

 

[Snowey1210]

Yeah well I've been here for about a year and I've only just passed 100 posts, and I don't believe that makes me inferior etc. I was pretty intimidated at first by some of the discussions posted on the forum, but I've become better equipped to express my thoughts accurately in writing of late so I'm beginning to post a bit more often.

I try to make my posts count. I guess I've never really been one for idle chit-chat. I understand it's importance in building positive social relationships but I tend to come to forums such as this one, to engage in intellectual discussions and so only really feel compelled to contribute when something gets my attention.

 

[Moiety]

I'm oblivious to most typologycentral.com mythology and I don't really care who's posting what. The idea of an internet rep is kind of laughable when you think about it. That's why I don't care if I'm misinterpreted, or ignored because people don't have a preconceived (dis)approval seal for me.

That dude that goes on about how F is immutable and whatnot really needs to take himself a little less seriously, though.

 

[sarah]

I'm oblivious to most typologycentral.com mythology and I don't really care who's posting what....
That dude that goes on about how F is immutable and whatnot really needs to take himself a little less seriously, though.

I never think to look at how many times a person's posted unless I see his or her posts all the time, in which case it makes me wonder how many times they post per day, and how they manage to find the time to post so often.

The idea that people who post more know more about type is silly. Is there anyone here who actually believes that posts that have nothing to do with psychological type = knowledge of type?