Thread: 20+ posts for mid g/a section why not counting the words instead?

Our current rule is whoever have 20+ posts can get into mid level giveaway section.
That causes some people to spam. Actually, it's kinda hard to determine if someone is spamming or that's all he can say in a post.

I suggest that instead of counting the posts, we count the words instead. Say in order to get in mid level, a person should have > 500 words counted from all the posts, threads he made. It also applies in the high level and trusted giveaway, perhaps the requirement will be 2500 words?

Another possible draw back in my suggestion was that what if someone just post a huge tutorial copied from somewhere to get away with the requirement? Perhaps, a solution is that posting in tutorial section won't count.

Conclusion:
To get into mid level giveaway:
+ 5 reps
+ minimum of 20 posts
+ 500 words from posts, threads



Trusted level giveaway:
+ 25 reps
+ minimum of 100 posts
+ 2500 words from posts, threads.

what ya think?

Then people would just make one big post or a tutorial or something. However, you could do both post count and word count.

Originally Posted by Archi

Then people would just make one big post or a tutorial or something. However, you could do both post count and word count.

Yeah, that's why i suggest to do both. That a user should meet both requirement, number of posts and words. How to count words? It's a programming question though, I think it's already implemented in this site. Such as the number of words on your signature is limited.

instead of counting the words, they should just increase the post count. I think the mid G/A should be 50 and trusted like 200 or 150. and they can change the rep requirements as well.

Instead of a word count, I too agree with the increase of post counts or rep requirements could be increased as well. Who's gonna count the words anyway??? Mods or admins? They have some much work instead of word counting.

dontdothat and RonWD, I very much agree the sentiment that you two are expressing. You want to reinforce positive behaviors and stop negative actions for newbies. And for the most part spam is the issue, but I think what you guys are suggesting is either easy to get around or not rewarding positive behavior.

The word count is not a bad idea, but there is no real way to enforce it. Archi is right that you can post one big article, and then continue spamming like normal.

Increasing post count is asking for more spam - imagine if the mid level G/A required 50 posts instead of 20 - can you imaging how many extra useless posts would occur so that people could reach the 50 posts for the mid level forums?

I've thought about this issue, and really what needs to happens is fairly hard to work into the system since the rewards are invites which are given at a user's discretion. Spam is relatively hard to classify and stop with rules, but us users "know it when we see it." Really the only way yo combat it is when preparing to give invites away (whether it is BitGamer or SCT), users need to be aware of the potential receivers history in T-I. Those that have spammed their way into the mid-level section, have made no real attempt to join the community, and are just looking for an invite handout shouldn't be rewarded (and told that they aren't receiving an invite for that reason).

Then again, that is hard since there is no way to enforce that...

---
Edit
---
Rep requirements could be changed - that is a form of positive reinforcement that can keep people from spamming. The only problem with the current system is that repping in new users gives them the user's rep power - not 1 reputation.

I think having different rep powers IS a good thing, but for the intro threads, I feel bad since the users who are fortunate enough to have their applications read by me would get 15 rep points (almost enough rep to enter trusted). It makes the playing field much less even for new members - and bless those who aren't necessarily deserving with rep so that they don't have to worry about it later

Originally Posted by Reducto

Instead of a word count, I too agree with the increase of post counts or rep requirements could be increased as well. Who's gonna count the words anyway??? Mods or admins? They have some much work instead of word counting.

what's up Reducto,
I didn't really mean counting the words by a mod. You use microsoft word to count the words you typed. The same way, the site itself will do the job. But it just a light suggestion just to discourage spammers. I like to increase the number of posts more.

Originally Posted by airman

Increasing post count is asking for more spam - imagine if the mid level G/A required 50 posts instead of 20 - can you imaging how many extra useless posts would occur so that people could reach the 50 posts for the mid level forums?

It might or might not since it will provide clearer evidence of spammers because now he has 50 posts to spam instead of 20.

Originally Posted by dontdothat

Yeah, that's why i suggest to do both. That a user should meet both requirement, number of posts and words. How to count words? It's a programming question though, I think it's already implemented in this site. Such as the number of words on your signature is limited.

If this get decided, it is easy to make a script/program to count the words of every post. Btw,I think in the signature it counts the characters and not the words.(I think that it was doing the last time I edited my signature.)

About the idea/suggestion, all I have to say is that if the person who would spam 20 posts to get into the mid g/a, he would just have to spam more. :001_tongue:
Always,in every case, if the person cares only about getting into the mid g/a, he will spam anything we ask. If we say 20 posts,he will make 20 posts. If we say him 50 posts and 1000 words,he will do it. We can't avoid them from spamming. Of course, if it is obvious that the person does not say something important and (s)he just spams,we can always report it,but you can spam without it being obvious.(check my posts if you don't believe me! Just kidding )