Limit users to 10 posts a day

[Wuppy]

It would be interesting to limit all users to a certain number of posts in each 24 hour period. Maybe 10, maybe 15, whatever the mods think best.

This would help encourage people to post more useful, relevant things rather than getting involved in endless flame wars.

This would also decrease the workload of the moderators because they would have fewer worthless, junky posts and personal attacks to remove.

If that seems too draconian, mods could limit the posting restriction to certain boards. For example, the "Pro Match Results," where people make running commentaries on the matches, could have unlimited posts per day.

Just a thought. I think it would make the boards a much better internet resource as it would (help) eliminate most of the worthless junk posts.

[Power Player]

You just showcased why you don't understand how a business succeeds on the internet.

Content is king, and moderators are here to decide what posts are "junky and worthless" - not you.

[Wuppy]

Aaaand.. I rest my case.

[Power Player]

You rest your case on that? LOL. So this thread was basically created to personally attack people. Ok, cool. Nice work.

Like I said, this site ranks extremely high on google for any tennis related search because of the content. If you limit people to 10 posts you just lose a ton of content and traffic. It's just simple logic that you don't really seem to grasp.

[Wuppy]

And this is where, in a typical TT thread, I would start making personal attacks back at you, and it would completely degenerate into name calling, as do the vast, vast majority of TT's threads.

This is beautiful, you're proving my point for me. I couldn't have asked for more.

I will address the minor point you have raised. "Content" might have been "king" a decade ago. Now, "relevant content" is king. Google's algorithm removes probably 99.9999% of TT's posts because they're worthless. If TT had a higher content-to-bullsh*t ratio, they would get more searches and more business, with less overhead.

Either way, we'll let the mods decide. I'm just throwing the idea out there. I do assume that people who have thousands upon thousands of posts will disagree

[Power Player]

The difference is that I have not attacked you in any way. I am just illustrating how you clearly do not understand the benefits of having a forum and why posts that you consider useless are not.

As for your point on relevant content, I sincerely doubt you work in the .com industry or really understand how complex google indexing is. Yes, relevant content is very important, but to say google removes 99.9% of TT's posts is 100% false and shows you have no idea on what you are talking about.

Furthermore it appears you are just making veiled attacks at posters like myself who have "thousands of posts" and have questioned your posts in the past.

To add, you already have close to 500 in only 3 months, so I doubt you should really be taking shots at anybody.

[mikeler]

FYI, you each have just 7 posts left for the rest of the day.

[Power Player]

Thanks Mikeler.

Darn it..now im down to 6.

[BobFL]

Wuppy, you need to talk to LeeD. You are in trouble, sorry.

[Bartelby]

Yes, I was once of the opinion that there should not be a minimum number of posts per day, but a minimum number of words - say 100 - per post to prevent posts that really contributed nothing further to the discussion.

I couldn't see this working in practice, but good threads can go for many pages without an interesting contribution and then they get hidden again.

The trouble with your suggestion ist that despite the fact we type, it really is just a conversation and hence posts can be as empty as most of them are.

[mikeler]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Yes, I was once of the opinion that there should not be a minimum number of posts per day, but a minimum number of words - say 100 - per post to prevent posts that really contributed nothing further to the discussion.

I couldn't see this working in practice, but good threads can go for many pages without an interesting contribution and then they get hidden again.

The trouble with your suggestion ist that despite the fact we type, it really is just a conversation and hence posts can be as empty as most of them are.

Interesting idea. I will admit that I almost always skip long posts and tend to read only the shorter ones unless it is a detailed string or racket review.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by BobFL

Wuppy, you need to talk to LeeD. You are in trouble, sorry.

LOLOLOL... You get an extra free post for this one!

[Loose Cannon]

Originally Posted by Power Player

You just showcased why you don't understand how a business succeeds on the internet.

Content is king, and moderators are here to decide what posts are "junky and worthless" - not you.

Well damn....Power Play just double bageled Wuppy 0-0

[bad_call]

rollover?...cause sometimes i just can't be here.

[krz]

BreakPoint might commit suicide if this were to ever happen.

[purple-n-gold]

internets rule

[Rjtennis]

Originally Posted by BobFL

Wuppy, you need to talk to LeeD. You are in trouble, sorry.

I would be interested in hearing the back story to this if you are willing to share. Thanks.

[BobFL]

Originally Posted by Rjtennis

I would be interested in hearing the back story to this if you are willing to share. Thanks.

You too need to talk to LeeD. He'll tell you everything.

[mikeler]

Wuppy had 29 posts so far today. Thread fail!

[mad dog1]

Wuppy's posts are all full of valuable content.

"all polys feel the same"

"string companies need to provide cost to manufacture poly strings because they should only cost a few cents since it's just extruded plastic"

"string poly at 62#s"

"ball pocketing causes shots to launch long, therefore don't need the string bed to pocket the ball"

"hard to generate topspin w/ wilson racquet head shape"

"hit strokes by brushing the ball and not driving through the ball"

"anyone under a 4.5 using anything under a 100 sq in racquet is deluding himself"

"limit users to 10 posts a day"

etc...