Minimum post requirements

Rules is rules and they are fine the way they are now.

before i became a very active member, i only frequented the marketplace. i only posted in the marketplace. when i tried to sell there and saw my marketplace posts did not count towards my total i was a little annoyed.. yes. but i read the rules, and just started posting more. thus becoming much more involved in our MR community. it worked out better because i love posting everyday at work.

become more involved, and be rewarded by being able to use our marketplace. you shouldn't have deleted your other account.

It may leave some people out, but it probably stops more people from signing up and trying to scam other members than it leaves out. since after a hundred posts people will know more about the person and know whether the person is likely to try to scam them or not.

mrkramer said:

It may leave some people out, but it probably stops more people from signing up and trying to scam other members than it leaves out.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Read up on when this was officially decided and why.

MacNut said:

Rules is rules and they are fine the way they are now.

Click to expand...

I think Doctor Q said it a bit better in announcing the rule change:

Doctor Q said:

Suggestions and feedback on the rules and Marketplace forum are welcome as always.

Click to expand...

I, for one, am impressed with members who restrain themselves from posting simply to reach the 100-post point or even the 500-post point. I think the OP makes a legitimate request worthy of a considered and considerate response.

mac 2005 said:

I, for one, am impressed with members who restrain themselves from posting simply to reach the 100-post point or even the 500-point.

Click to expand...

Believe me, quite a few members try to spam their way there. And it's very apparent in their sudden shift in posting habits. Going from posts with content maybe, a few times a day, to well over 20 posts a day with no more content than, "I agree," or "LOL."

devilot said:

Believe me, quite a few members try to spam their way there. And it's very apparent in their sudden shift in posting habits. Going from posts with content maybe, a few times a day, to well over 20 posts a day with no more content than, "I agree," or "LOL."

Click to expand...

This is what I don't want to do. I check the board regularly, but I don't post nearly as much as I read posts.

Now I've got an old Mac I wanted to post to the marketplace, but I'm not allowed to because of the 100 post minimum rule. Could not this be amended to include an optional per-case review by a mod for those who have been members for over a few months?

I have been a member since September, read the front page since way before then, and read the forums regularly and yet am not allowed to post in the marketplace. Believe me, I understand the rationale, but could the mods not make an exception for those who ask to post and are proven not to be spammers or opportunists in the forums?

BTW, I should also mention that I have an established name in other Mac boards where I have been a member longer. Although MacRumors is its own community, I propose that it is a segment of the larger overall Mac community composed of all the boards and sites out there that cater to the Mac community. In fact, I notice other such posters here whom I recognize from other Mac boards. Thus, I am already part of, and in fact, well established in, the Mac community overall, just a little bit newer to this great sub-division of it.

If you have read the forum boards you will notice that one thing that this forum in particular possesses is consistency.

The idea that we should count other forums posts is:
A. too complicated
B. unfair - takes away from the devoted users from this forum
C. risky - people could just make their own forums and there is no way to determine which forums should count

Gamoe said:

Now I've got an old Mac I wanted to post to the marketplace, but I'm not allowed to because of the 100 post minimum rule. Could not this be amended to include an optional per-case review by a mod for those who have been members for over a few months?

Click to expand...

But then every member with fewer than 100 posts would make a similar request, and soon the mods would be overworked. You have to remember two things about the mods:

• They are volunteers (that means they don't get paid to put up with our garbage).
  
  and
  
  
• They have lives of their own. You can't expect a massive bureaucracy to handle individual needs on a privately owned forum.

Gamoe said:

Could not this be amended to include an optional per-case review by a mod for those who have been members for over a few months?

Click to expand...

With all due respect, if we had a dollar... scratch that, a euro, for every private request along similar lines, we'd be paying off Heather Mills with change.

The rules exist, because over time, they work... and possibly more importantly, are constantly honed and reviewed by the site admins.

Also say for some reason a market place thread that was allowed (and therefore endorsed by a mod) went wrong and there were issues regarding the seller/buyer, guess who gets the flak.

I appreciate the reasons given, and I don't really expect the forum to change the rules on my behalf. But I would like to point out that if fairness is of utmost concern, this rule is hardly a guarantee of it and is potentially counter to it.

Though it may not be possible to craft a completely fair criteria, I propose that the length of membership be considered and counted more heavily than it is at present. A 100 post minimum, while I'm sure it does cut back on SPAM, seems too stringent and inflexible to approach fairness.

You must consider your purpose and evaluate the established criteria based upon that. If the purpose is to keep out SPAM, haven't my posts and time of membership sufficiently established that I am not a spammer?

Visiting the marketplace encourages and often results in additional non-marketplace posting thanks to increased visits to the board. Having no such ability, this limitation effectively discourages such posting and even additional members who may join for the marketplace but often end up contributing considerably to other discussions.

Anyway, I expect no special treatment, but I do urge this rule to be reconsidered. I will probably continue to read and occasionally contribute to the board, but I know I will have to go elsewhere to reach the Mac community if I want to sell something (and probably for a long time, considering my posting rate and the 100 post criteria), which is a shame, because this is a nice board.

I think it's important to remember that the Marketplace is a privilege that the mods/admins decide to continue to provide despite the enormous amount of moderation required to maintain it.

As Blue Velvet and xUKHCx pointed out, there are other factors to consider aside from the handful of perfectly good members who are disenfranchised by the rules.

If you think about it, other things in society operate on a similar basis. The law says you must be 18 to buy a lottery ticket. The implied reason is that 18 is a rational age at which you are "adult" enough to know whether or not to gamble with your money. There will always be exceptional 16 or 17 year olds who will know that long before 18, and there will be 21, 30, and even 50 year olds who will not learn that lesson. You might say that that law is useless.

However, it provides an important impartial metric for determining eligibility. This is because most people who reach a set stage (the age of 18 or 100 posts) will have likely matured (or in MR's case, learned the rules and proven credibility) to the point where they can be trusted to act responsibly most of the time.

It isn't ideal, but it's the best that can be done given the circumstances. The most important aspect is that the rule allows for mods and admins to treat everyone the same. That is the most important thing that the rule can achieve, because it creates more legitimacy and fairness.

If you look at the Marketplace, possibly the biggest/most posted on thread is one dealing with fraud on this forum.

The mods don't need lawyers, nor should they have to deal with things like this, clearly being "overprotective" in this instance is the best option.

Granting special permission would decrease consistency and increase favoritism, two things that would heavily discredit and take away from this forum.

CalBoy said:

I think it's important to remember that the Marketplace is a privilege that the mods/admins decide to continue to provide despite the enormous amount of moderation required to maintain it.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The marketplace is no more a "privilege" than the normal discussion forums, where non-mod and admin members provide the vast majority of the content and value. But I digress.

CalBoy said:

If you think about it, other things in society operate on a similar basis... [snip]

Click to expand...

I don't think the general idea is bad (though there may are better ways, too). I think the specific criteria is too stringent. I fail to see how someone who has posted 70 trivial replies more than me is has proven himself to be more trustworthy. And I think expecting 100 substantial posts from a member merely to allow marketplace posting is a bit over the top.

CalBoy said:

It isn't ideal, but it's the best that can be done given the circumstances. The most important aspect is that the rule allows for mods and admins to treat everyone the same. That is the most important thing that the rule can achieve, because it creates more legitimacy and fairness.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think a *better*, more fair criteria can be devised. Treating everyone the same does not magically justify the treatment nor make it fair. If this situation somehow only applied to myself, it would be a different matter, but I'm sure it applies to a much larger number of members, certainly larger than "a handful".

Nevertheless, If this is truly the board consensus, then so be it. But at least now you know my point of view and why it is so, whether you agree with it or not. That's all I was expecting to do, really.

Never mind the fact the moderators can't actually make the exception anyway, we can move threads, delete and edit posts etc, but we can't change your forum permissions (like any other system vb has groups to define permissions to forums). It's all automated, and we're not about to start dicking around getting admins to make group modifications willy nilly. Not what you wanted to hear, but that's how it goes.

There are other places besides MR to sell stuff. I don't understand the sense of entitlement people sometimes feel over this. It's a perk, (albeit for the regulars) not a right.

Gamoe said:

I think a *better*, more fair criteria can be devised.

Click to expand...

If you come up with a sensible/better proposal that is well explained, I'm sure the people in charge (of which I am not one) will consider it.

Gamoe said:

I disagree. The marketplace is no more a "privilege" than the normal discussion forums, where non-mod and admin members provide the vast majority of the content and value. But I digress.

Click to expand...

This is where you are incorrect. The marketplace is a privilege in your eyes. These boards are privately owned and operated. Therefore your privileges are only the ones given to you by the owner. The "sense of entitlement" you have is mislead.

If you do not agree with the terms of this board then sell your items on another board.

What the heck, I'll throw my 2¢ in.

While I don't feel that 100 posts is a particularly large amount, especially for someone who visits the forums with any regularity, I understand that it might seem like a lot for some people. I don't recall exactly how long it took me to reach 100 posts, but if I had to venture a guess, I'd say around 9 months, if not longer.

Doctor Q said:

We're looking for the right balance to make the Marketplace work for private sales between MacRumors forum members and avoid opportunists and those without credibility. We'd like to see the Marketplace run without a high level of moderation, which should benefit not only the moderators but members using the Marketplace too.

Click to expand...

If the goal of the ruling, as stated, is to "avoid opportunists and those without credibility," then perhaps the rule can be amended to include a length of membership clause. I certainly don't think that someone is going to join a forum, knowing that in six months, or a year that they are going to spam someone. In fact, I think it could be argued that a person with 31 posts over 18 months could easily be more credible than someone with 101 posts over 1 month.

That would make the rule "100 posts or X number of days." If this is something that could be easily activated in the forum software, then I would wonder the reason it wouldn't happen.

tobefirst said:

That would make the rule "100 posts or X number of days." If this is something that could be easily activated in the forum software, then I would wonder the reason it wouldn't happen.

Click to expand...

Ah, but then I could create an account, make no posts and come back in 6 months/1 year and scam someone. I think though a 100 posts and 6 months membership would be a better qualifier, or maybe 75 posts and 6 months membership.

Another option used on forums is the reputation option where you can award points to helpful members so everyone knows who is constructive and makes useful posts, regardless of number of posts.

riscy said:

Another option used on forums is the reputation option where you can award points to helpful members so everyone knows who is constructive and makes useful posts, regardless of number of posts.

Click to expand...

So someone comes in, makes a few useful posts, all of which get reputation added, then they proceed to scam someone.

100 post rule is there for a good reason, it's simple and it works. If you're active in anyway you will build up 100 posts very quickly, if you're not then that's just too bad, there's a million other outlets to sell your used goods online. This just isn't one of them.

I'm closing this thread now for 2 reasons. 1) It's been done to death and questioned many times by the select few that don't like it, it always stands up as it is simply the easiest to implement and run. 2) This is thread revival from almost a year ago.

After a couple of PM's politely requesting that discussion continue I see no harm in doing so.

So, here you go, fill your boots...