[Quick question]On the topic of spam.....

I strongly disagree. Content is very important - if every post you make is "+1" or "lol" as mentioned above it can be seen as spam because you're not really adding anything to the discussion. However it works the other way too in that if someone posts as much as they can as fast as they can all the time it doesn't really show any focus on what's being said because they're so busy talking. So I think if you look closely you'll see that spam isn't just defined by number of posts, but that there are a lot of things that must be considered when taking action to filter spam.

Hope that's helpful!

 

I have been talked to by a mod or two about me "posting to up my post count" but I really don't care how high my post count number (or whatever) is. I can see why one could think that, but I think doing something like that is pretty pointless.

Can't say I haven't spammed though...

 

Yeah, that'd be like saying you don't have any socks

 

And taking the opposite of DB's statement...as Bacon has an army of socks, he must have spammed a lot! Hmm...

 

The mods can say what they want, but they really do judge us by our post counts:

 

Not exactly--it can be an indicator. If you haven't been here long and have an insanely high post count, it might lead to the mod checking your recent posts page, and then individual posts.

 

I don't know where you're getting that from, but I never look at post counts. If someone's spamming, that's entirely different than judging someone by their post count. A user can have a high amount of posts that are all entirely within the posting rules and good posts. However, some users decide they want to have some insanely high post count and spam up the place. But that's not "judging someone" by their post count.

 

Not at all. We moderate posts that aren't within the TOS. There are high and low quality posters all over the post count range.

 

I have an unusually large post count, for the time that I've been posting here. I've never once been accused of spamming.

 

I didn't know stuff like "tl,dr" and "+1" were spam up until a few days ago. I got in trouble for putting tl,dr

Back to the OP, rarely have I ever quoted a post and not put something under it, but I have done it before. I think in places like the JCC, it's universally understood that by quoting and re-posting someone's reply means you agree with them. Used sparingly, I do not think they should be considered spam, however if it does become a problem I suppose the mods should make a rule about it.







I'm Spartacus

 

I like the birthday threads because I can get my spam on.

I don't think we have too big of a problem with spam. I have not noticed a large number of quotes without any additional text being added. Personally I get tired of all of the quotes that have fixed underneath them. Occasionally they are funny but usually just stupid.

 

The definition of spamming should not include the phrase "posting simply to up your post count." Only the poster knows why s/he is posting.

 

We can determine their motive by their style of posting though. After a while, it's pretty easy to discern who is posting out of sheer interest and who is posting only to bring up their post count. The types and styles of posts are completely different.

 

I have a high post count for how long I have been around as well, but have been told that I could only get such from spamming though no mod has ever said such

 

99% of the time, if a user looks like they are posting because they want nothing more than a few more posts in the plus column - i.e not adding anything to threads despite posting frequently in them, posting across multiple threads with careless, identical, or 'nothing' responses - then that's exactly what they are doing.

 

On that note, lol @ Arsenal

 

QFT.

 

LOL @ ApolloSmileGirl and Everton!

 

Along the same lines as the "Spartacus" justification, I would like to remind everyone of that thread on plagiarism that went on to garner some 35 odd posts of nothing but the text of the opening post quoted, and credited to the current poster. I would argue that was completely justified, in context.