We get a non-zero number of fly-by-night posters who register, make a really obnoxious request for advice, then never come back to the thread (or board) again. See examples here and here. I don’t know if anyone sees this as a huge problem–it’s not THAT big a deal, it’s just annoying. But a good way to prevent it from happening is to require a minimum number of posts before new thread creation is enabled.
I’ve been a member of a couple other forums where you need a post count of 5+ to create a new thread. It basically causes new members to self-select into two groups: those who actually want to be part of the board, and those who just wanted one-off validation of a shitty choice–the latter group generally just goes away when they realize they can’t make a new thread. Plus, it makes new members at least minimally aware of the board culture, because they have to have read and responded to at least 5 threads before making their own.
Just a suggestion, no worries if it’s deemed unnecessary or too mean or not supported by the software or whatever
the thing is, there are people who want to comment on the columns. They wouldn’t be able to if they need posts before starting a thread. There are also people who come to SDMB to ask actual questions. They would be shut out.
I agree we shouldn’t change the rules to require five posts before creating a thread. Besides, these kinds of threads have amusement value by creating an opportunity to post snarky answers.
If people want to spam they’re going to spam. If they can’t start a new thread, they’ll just post their off-topic spam in an existing thread. And I would find that more annoying than spam threads.
Most of the spam I see is in the form of posts to existing threads, not new threads. Spambots and comment spammers often look for existing topics to post to. (That’s one reason we see a lot of zombie threads, which are often raised by spammers.)
While the proposed solution might weed out some drive-by posters, personally I think it’s better to keep access open especially in the case of GQ and Comments.
Many of our new members are inclined to register because they found a column or a thread on the board and they want to comment. They want to comment NOW. If we restrict them in any way they won’t register and they won’t come back, so forcing them to wait before they can start something would be counterproductive.
I find one-off whack jobs to be among the most entertaining things about the Board, and would miss the opportunity to read the kind of threads that always seem to have “This will not end well” as one of the most frequent responses.
I’m not necessarily in favor of setting a post limit before starting a thread, although the idea does have some merit. But perhaps like you are able to allow photos under certain circumstances – the Marketplace – you could allow first-timers to start threads only in Comments on Cecil’s Columns/Staff Reports. Would that be possible for the software to do? That way if they could still come in if all they wanted to do was comment on one of those.
I doubt I’m the only poster here who registered in order to ask a question (which was answered in minutes, by the way ). Would I have hung around waiting until I had made the five (or some other number of) mandatory posts? I don’t know.
I think it’s likely that someone may have a question they need/want answered yet would be hard pressed to contribute meaningfully to other threads. So, either they post crap in those other threads just to reach the magic threshold or, more likely, they give up and look elsewhere. Neither outcome seems particularly desirable, especially if the price to pay to avoid that happening is simply ignoring any “fly-by-night”-ers’ OPs.
It’s a fine idea, especially considering how all Dopers are in complete agreement and perfect harmony when it comes to matters of the “best” beers, wines and spirits…
Or move to Canada, where we don’t have all those puritanical values about waiting 3 years in your adultery to drink, here, we start right away! (After all, you can vote at 18, if you see who you have to vote for, you need a drink!)
(Well, except in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, PEI, Nova Scotia, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, where drinking age is 19, but at least here in Manitoba it’s 18!)
). Would I have hung around waiting until I had made the five (or some other number of) mandatory posts? I don’t know.
