nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Limit to number of threads a new user can start in After hours and Current affairs.

fineso.mom

Would it be possible to put a limit on the number of threads a new user can create in these forums? Say , one a week. I'm thinking of one user in particular but there are a few of them. A lot of the threads are just repeats of older threads and/or simply inane.
I think it might cut out a lot of the crap ,as if they had to wait a week to create a new thread, they might just move on somewhere else.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

There are several culprits in operation, churning out threads of dubious merit almost daily. I would recommend a post threshold of at least 500, otherwise limiting (as the OP suggested) new activity to a restricted maximum per week. This would serve to discourage those who lack patience awaiting their next wind-up.

the_pen_turner

Not sure this would actually work. All they would do is create even more accounts

Something definitely is needed though

fineso.mom

True, but having to do that might slow them down a bit or get old quicker. Also if they did that ,eventually they would be banned for having more than one account..possibly.

biko

Perhaps make it so you cannot start threads in AH or CA until you have been a member for a week and have 20 good posts in other forums?

[Deleted User]

suggest we look at a fix so that people arent forced to click on threads

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I'm not sure of the mechanics but there does seem to be a need for something to reign in the number of valueless threads being created by a particular couple of posters in After Hours recently.

banie01

The sheer amount of inane and redundant threads started by some posters in CA and AH is becoming very tiresome.

A minimum post count before opening a thread in either of those Subs would eliminate a lot of BS IMO.

EmmetSpiceland

Jacoby Gray Rivalry wrote: »

I'm not sure of the mechanics but there does seem to be a need for something to reign in the number of valueless threads being created by a particular couple of posters in After Hours recently.

To be fair, if people like you stopped, constantly, posting to complain about the “quality” of any of those “valueless” threads they’d just fade away into obscurity but instead you constantly “bump” them.

I mean, I don’t post in any of the inane threads started by Boards’ own “content creator” mod when he puts up a “What did you do on your holidays” type threads.

If the threads have no “value” the users will let them die. They won’t go anywhere if people keep posting in them to point out just how crap they are.

Having a minimum number of posts before you can start a thread isn’t a bad idea but is that what Boards.ie want? I mean, they would, surely, be more interested in “traffic” on the site than having a few “nice and proper” threads of value.

So by leaving things alone they’ll continues to get more and more posts as users make the “valueless” threads popular by pointing out how little value they have.

Leaves us in somewhat of a “quandary”.

Ken.

banie01 wrote: »

The sheer amount of inane and redundant threads started by some posters in CA and AH is becoming very tiresome.

A minimum post count before opening a thread in either of those Subs would eliminate a lot of BS IMO.

This type of thing has been suggested before and the fear the mods,cmods and admins have/had is if a minimum post count was needed then people would post sh!t in other forums to get to the number. It's better to keep the crap confined to AH.

votecounts

Hopefully some of these suggestions will be taken on board as some of these new threads are complete tripe started by re regs and trolls

Beasty

My understanding (and this is how it happens elsewhere on the site, with Soccer and Politics Cafe 2 being prime examples), was the only practical way of doing this would be to have an access system

CA was set up in its current form precisely because of all the complaints we received over the PC access system

As Nonson has already pointed out, even with minimum postcounts it just moves the crap elsewhere

Either way though, threads only thrive if they are popular. If posters are not interested in a topic in either forum it will quickly drop off the front page. If posters are deliberately starting inane threads we can deal with them individually

Charlie19

Can people not just ignore these threads and move on.

the_pen_turner

how about a seperate section for trolls and time waster so they can post all they like and not bother anyone

Sheridan81

the_pen_turner wrote: »

how about a seperate section for trolls and time waster

But trolling and timewasting is a fine undercover art whose core values would be rendered obsolete in a forum called 'trolling and timewasting'.

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

To be fair, if people like you stopped, constantly, posting to complain about the “quality” of any of those “valueless” threads they’d just fade away into obscurity but instead you constantly “bump” them.

I mean, I don’t post in any of the inane threads started by Boards’ own “content creator” mod when he puts up his “What did you do on your holidays” type threads.

If the threads have no “value” the users will let them die. They won’t go anywhere if people keep posting in them to point out just how crap they are.

Having a minimum number of posts before you can start a thread isn’t a bad idea but is that what Boards.ie want? I mean, they would, surely, be more interested in “traffic” on the site than having a few “nice and proper” threads of value.

So by leaving things alone they’ll continues to get more and more posts as users make the “valueless” threads popular by pointing out how little value they have.

Leaves us in somewhat of a “quandary”.

"I" tend "to" agree "Emmet".

fineso.mom

Beasty wrote: »

As Nonson has already pointed out, even with minimum postcounts it just moves the crap elsewhere

REPLY
That's why I suggested a limit to threads created by new users , not a minimum post count. Say ,one or two threads a week for 4 weeks. That's still 8 threads in AH or CA.

Beasty

fineso.mom wrote: »

That's why I suggested a limit to threads created by new users , not a minimum post count. Say ,one or two threads a week for 4 weeks. That's still 8 threads in AH or CA.

We do not have a mechanism to limit threads started in this way. It would have to be done manually, which is completely impractical

As I've already indicated though - CA and AH are fast moving forums and threads only stick around on the front page if people want to post in them

Boom_Bap

From experience in AH, some thread could be started off as being rubbish but then evolve into things of beauty. So I wouldn't like to see these being stopped before they could blossom.
If they don't blossom, they just fizzle away.

Overheal

They will just necro threads

Necro

Overheal wrote: »

They will just necro threads

You rang