The Enid Blyton Society

We need some kind of Junior Chat thread. People can natter away to their hearts content on it and leave the main theads free. Every so often the chat thread can simply be zapped and restarted as there will not be anything worth keeping on it.

Split from "General Natter Room" - Anita

I'm afraid this forum is beginning to resemble a teen chat room. This may not be a bad thing, but it does make Blyton seem an afterthought. I don't really mind off-topic conversation -- it can often be interesting -- but when you have to skim through a dozen random responses before you can enjoy *one* interesting, well-reasoned post, interest tends to wane somewhat. Especially if, like me, you have to go to the trouble of accessing the forum on a mobile device.

No complaints though, because I can always choose to be an occasional visitor than a regular participant.

It is not without reason that serious SIGs (special-interest groups) do not include posts made in the following sections while calculating a forumite's total post count: off-topic (general natter), games and quizzes, personal introductions and buy/sell. Putting this in place won't eliminate the 'chat' threads completely but it will certainly reduce the silly questions and one-word responses which are nothing but a ruse to increase one's post count. I fail to see how reaching a milestone of (say) 5000 posts, most of them in General Natter, can be an achievement, but apparently I'm in a minority.

Lucky Star wrote:We need some kind of Junior Chat thread.

I don't think we actually want to encourage it! People who are considered old enough (by themselves and their parents, at least) to post on public forums should have the sense to realise that such conversations ought to be conducted using a private "chat" facility.

Fatty wrote:It is not without reason that serious SIGs (special-interest groups) do not include posts made in the following sections while calculating a forumite's total post count: off-topic (general natter), games and quizzes, personal introductions and buy/sell. Putting this in place won't eliminate the 'chat' threads completely but it will certainly reduce the silly questions and one-word responses which are nothing but a ruse to increase one's post count. I fail to see how reaching a milestone of (say) 5000 posts, most of them in General Natter, can be an achievement, but apparently I'm in a minority.

I agree that having a high post count means nothing. The best thing would probably be to do away with the "post count" feature altogether, so it becomes a complete non-issue, but as Keith has already got a list of things lined up to do I don't like to bother him about it at the moment.

I think the post count thing is a feature of phBB itself - the whatever it is that powers the forums. I doubt Keith can do away with it...?

I don't neccesseraly think that the post count feature is the cause of all the one-word or otherwise uninteresting posts. Or the silly chit-chat between our younger members. Just like children do face to face they feel the need to say Something in response and say the first thing that comes into their head.

I also dislike the notion that anything said in general natter is not worth counting in the post count as a great deal of amusing and interesting stuff is posted there. I like talking about Blyton, her books and the adaptations - but I also like many of the people here and if theyre discussing the price of tea in China then it will probably still be an interesting thread and I will take part if I've anything to say. Doesn't make those contributions any less worthwhile.

Fiona1986 wrote:I also dislike the notion that anything said in general natter is not worth counting...

That's why it would probably be best to remove the feature altogether, across the board. As you said it may not be possible, Ming, but Fatty's comment about other forums disabling the "post count" feature (at least in certain areas) suggests that it might be. Keeping a tally of the number of posts individuals have made serves no purpose as far as I can see. Posts are valuable (or not) for their content - not for their number.

Ming wrote:I think the post count thing is a feature of phBB itself - the whatever it is that powers the forums. I doubt Keith can do away with it...?

You underestimate the versatility of phpBB. It should be possible to hide the post count (as opposed to permanently doing away with it) so it's visible only to moderators, and this can be done selectively as well. Many groups on phpBB display the post count because it allows a certain 'hierarchy'. For example, in an aviation enthusiasts forum that I occasionally visit, a member can be, in ascending order of privileges:

1. Trainee pilot: Less than 25 posts
2. Co-pilot: 25 posts or more
3. Pilot: 100 posts or more
4. Veteran: 1000 posts or more
5. Distinguished Aviator: Only by invitation, and based on contribution to the forum.
6. ATCs (Moderators)

The different grades with their fanciful names often have varying levels of privileges as well. For instance, trainee pilots have their posts moderated, while veterans can set their status to invisible, and enjoy greater storage space for images and messages. Distinguished Aviators are a step ahead and can engage in one-on-one chat with moderators, and assist in moderating duties if required.

I've been stuck at Pilot for years because I don't have much to say that's on-topic; my interest in aviation isn't *that* abiding. Incidentally, any off-topic posts that aren't made in the approved OT forum get deleted and repeat offenders get a temporary ban. I'm not in favour of such a nanny-state kind of policing, but it must be said that the site is a goldmine of relevant information, so people shut up and behave. (I repeat: I'm not saying that banning people for minor lapses is a good thing.)

While these post count-based 'grades' may be fun, in a democratic forum such as ours there's really no need to retain it. The only possible use is to tell at a glance if someone is a long-time contributor (and whose opinion can hence can be relied upon). Including games and general natter in the count dilutes even this minimal advantage -- if someone has a post count of a few thousand but most of them have to do with (say) recipes for salads or are guesses in the quiz threads, that's irrelevant. It's an *Enid Blyton* discussion group after all.

Disclaimer: I say this as someone with no vested interest; the majority of my posts (58%) are in the Games forum.

Matt was quite keen on this ranking system when he originally set the forum up, but I wasn't happy about it and I'm afraid I knocked it on the head. I felt that it would simply encourage masses of brief rubbish posts simply so that someone could get promoted to a higher rank. I think in retrospect after seven years I was probably right to veto it, though it wasn't very democratic of me!

What 'ranks' did Matt have in mind I wonder. Surely not the following levels in ascending order of seniority: Kiki the Parrot, Mischief the Monkey, Scamper the Spaniel, Buster the Scottie and Timmy the Dog?

That could throw up all kinds of heated debates as to which animal character was the highest ranking.

Maybe we could have a poll to list them in our favourite order, or maybe do a Family Fortunes type quiz on the general public to see which 3 animals from Enid Blyton books they could name? I suspect that Timmy would probably be top of the list.

Fatty wrote:the following levels in ascending order of seniority: Kiki the Parrot, Mischief the Monkey, Scamper the Spaniel, Buster the Scottie and Timmy the Dog?

Applying your criteria to the current figures gives us this top five,Fatty!

1.Timmy the Dog Moonraker

2.Buster the Scottie Anita

3.Scamper the Spaniel Julie2owlsdene

4.Mischief the Monkey Ming

5.Kiki the Parrot Eddie Muir

I truly don't get the desire to have a high post-count. Do we get a free EB book when we reach a certain amount of posts or something?

Glancing at a person's avatar, date of joining the forums, signature, favourite book and location all give me useful information about another forumite that allows me to place their posts in some sort of vague background context. A user's post-count is irrelevant.

Anita Bensoussane wrote:

Lucky Star wrote:We need some kind of Junior Chat thread.

I don't think we actually want to encourage it!

I'm not trying to actually "encourage" it. However we do seem to have a situation where it's happening whether we encourage it or not. And thats not necesarily a bad thing; people on these forums are friends and friends do chit chat amongst each other sometimes. I just thought that by having a specialised chat thread we could contain it within one place rather than have every other thread wander off into trivialities. Something similar worked before when arguments on the Limericks thread were virtually banished overnight by the creation of the Jumior Limericks Thread. And I remember that G@K once suggested a dedicated realtime chat facility be introduced here. Nothing came of that but a chat thread would be the next best thing.

pete9012S wrote:Applying your criteria to the current figures gives us this top five,Fatty!
1.Timmy the Dog Moonraker
2.Buster the Scottie Anita
3.Scamper the Spaniel Julie2owlsdene
4.Mischief the Monkey Ming
5.Kiki the Parrot Eddie Muir

That's not quite how it works, Pete. It's not a top-five ranking; anyone who achieves (say) 10000 posts is eligible to be a Timmy, hit 5000 posts and you're Buster, and so on.

I hope nobody takes the suggestion seriously though!

Lucky Star wrote:

Anita Bensoussane wrote:

Lucky Star wrote:We need some kind of Junior Chat thread.

I don't think we actually want to encourage it!

I'm not trying to actually "encourage" it. However we do seem to have a situation where it's happening whether we encourage it or not.

Personally, I don't think the post count has anything to do with it. I'm not sure that a Junior Chat Thread would really solve much. I have always liked to read all new posts in the past, but find it inccreasingly irritating now!

Fatty wrote:but when you have to skim through a dozen random responses before you can enjoy *one* interesting, well-reasoned post, interest tends to wane somewhat.

Doesn't it just! Being away for the weekend, I was using my iPhone and an iPad, and found it increasingly irritating to wade through so many new posts (it used to be a joy to see loads of new posts listed) only to find one-word posts (Awwwww, was one, I think) in abundance. I think out of 18 new posts, only about 3 were of interest to me - and that's with me ignoring all the school-series threads!

I'm afraid this forum is beginning to resemble a teen chat room

I am also afraid that this will put off some of our 'deeper' contributors. For example, MJE no longer posts - not necessarily because of the number of trivial posts, he does tend to disappear at times.

I think the problem (as has been said) is the "need to participate" that some of our younger friends feel. This has been shown by completely random posts in threads - bearing no connection with previous posts. I don't think individuals' post counts come into this mentality. I realise I do have a vested interest, and feel certain delight in my number of posts and length of time on the forums. However, it is the quality of posts that must remain paramount. Another forum I subscribe to would warn members about trivial/chat-room/one word posts, and should they continue, the member would find his account deleted. Suffice to say, nearly all posts are interesting!