Can we raise the post count to start new threads?

[Analog Kid]

It seems there's a steady flow of what I'll charitably refer to as controversial threads launched by newbies-- usually within the first post or two of starting an account that often seems abandoned thereafter.

Can we up the post count necessary to start a thread? Or have a mandatory waiting period or something?

 

[Aggedor]

This gets my vote.

 

[Juicy Box]

IIRC, this has been brought up in the past multiple times, it was said before that the reason of not limiting new member's ability to create threads was because many people that are having a specific issue with an Apple device would create an account just to ask about that problem. They may even post the same problem on multiple Apple/tech forums looking for an answer. After the problem is resolved, they may never return. MR didn't want to prevent these new members from being able to post their Apple device issue just because they were new.

If they create a thread or post something controversial, spam, or anything that violates the forum rules, then MR suggested just reporting the post, IIRC.

Otherwise, MR doesn't see it as a problem.

At least that is how I remember the response in the past.

 

[chabig]

This would also fix the spam problem.

 

[maflynn]

It seems there's a steady flow of what I'll charitably refer to as controversial threads launched by newbies

Can you provide some examples to this? I will say that the so called hit and run trolling tactics can be annoying but I've not come across any recently but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

I would recommend reporting those threads that you see as trolling. There's a lower threshold for new members to post controversial content. That is if you have a positive track record here at MR but create a thread that is provocative it may pass muster, but if a new member does it w/o any track record it will probably get zapped.

Can we up the post count necessary to start a thread? Or have a mandatory waiting period or something?

I'm not against this but I do think it could have some unforeseen consequences.

• How high do you set it? In an extreme example, setting it to 50 posts or 1 week waiting period would be counter productive and frustrate new members to a high degree that they'll just leave.
• There is a sizeable number of members who've been here for long time, who mostly read, but occasionally post and rarely create threads - that would unfairly target them.
• For people who want to join to just to stir the pot that means they'll be posting +1 type content to get around the limitation. The time period will mean they create an account and just move on to another site until that period expires. We see this all the time with spammers, that is, they come here register and the account is dormant for months, and then they start spamming.
• We have very active support forums, and if someone joined here to get help, particularly an immediate or critical issue - having this will prevent them from getting that help. This would be unfortunate simply because we have such a knowledgeable and helpful member base.

In summary, while on paper it sounds like a good idea, I see this, punishing the innocent with maybe slightly inconveniencing but not stopping the guilty.

 

[maflynn]

This would also fix the spam problem.

Not as much as you think. As I noted above, spammers register and let the account lay dormant. Also we see spammers create vacuous, empty type posts just to create them, but then come back later and edit the post and add their payload. So their behavior won't change that much

 

[Pilot Jones]

A variation to this could be that all new accounts can make a fresh threads, but until they hit the required post count, all their threads will only become public after a moderator's approval.

I don't know if this is feasible, but it could simultaneously filter out all the garbage while being a reliable workaround for someone new who has a legitimate query. It might just take them an hour or two for their thread to be approved.

 

[maflynn]

but until they hit the required post count, all their threads will only become public after a moderator's approval.

Another good idea, but it will put more stress on the admin staff that is already constrained. I think if the workload could be worked out so that people don't wait a long time to get their threads approved it could be feasible.

MacRumors already does this to some extent anyways.

 

[Shirasaki]

This would also fix the spam problem.

Bots are restless. They just work around any simple limits we put into it. And given how prevalent AI is nowadays, even using AI cannot solve the problem to a degree that satisfies us Members, including spam problem. (They just spam better lol)

 

[Pilot Jones]

Another good idea, but it will put more stress on the admin staff that is already constrained. I think if the workload could be worked out so that people don't wait a long time to get their threads approved it could be feasible.

MacRumors already does this to some extent anyways.

Fair enough, yeah I obviously have no idea of the bloodbath you guys deal with behind the scenes. Forum moderation can get pretty wild and most users never see the crazy stuff because its removed in time.

Theoretically it would be great, because I do agree with the premise of what OP is saying. Its not that a lot of new users are creating explicitly scammy/spammy threads, but just threads that are volatile for the sake of being volatile without much reasoning.

A recent thread that comes to mind is the one where a new user's very first post was a new thread where they were were convinced that Apple to be split up into distinct individual companies only focusing on hardware, software, audio devices, etc. with no interplay. Understandably, that thread got some instant activity because of the nature of that opinion.

You have to either be utterly daft, never used an Apple device in your life or be purposely stirring the pot to throw Apple's most valuable asset, which is its seamless integration, out of the window with such conviction on an Apple-centric forum.

Also, I'm gonna put my tin foil hat on while bringing this up, but one of the most valuable sections of Macrumors is the Marketplace which is only accessible by post count. If you're a new user and want to expedite gaining access to that, the best thing to do would be to make a mindlessly contrarian thread that isn't bad enough to get banned, but is just bad enough that you can use all the inevitably riled up replies & opinion-checks and reply to them all to speed up the process. Just a thought.

 

[I7guy]

Maybe limit the forums new members could create threads? I don’t know if that solves anything, but seeking help for apple products eliminates a number of forums that don’t specifically have anything to do with hardware or software assistance.

 

[iStorm]

I like this idea, but can also see the problems it could cause. (i.e. Someone new genuinely needing help, but can't post...so they'll go somewhere else.)

I think the best thing we can do is to use the 'Report' button. I use it often, but I think more people could be using it. Sometimes I'll see spam posts (or unnecessary off-topic comments) that have been here for more than a half hour or so with many views, and they're finally taken down a few minutes after I report them. It could just be a timing coincidence though, but I usually get a response that action was taken. I've considered doing the same for non-descriptive/click-baity titles too.

Sometimes I wonder if part of this issue has to do with the new-ish banner section that shows trending threads near the top of the Home Page. Seems like that is always filled with click-baity titles or controversial topics just to stir the pot. Do some people do this just to be "popular" and be "featured" on the home page? I'd rather see this section show trending articles instead. (i.e. Which articles written by MacRumors are trending? Maybe there's a popular story/article that I missed.)

Also, don't forget about the 'Ignore' button. Some people are truly trolls or always starting new threads with random questions.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

I've noticed an increase of such new posters in the MBP/MBA fora as of late. Thread titles usually contain a controversial "statement" wrapped up as a fact to elicit maximum emotional response. Now days I look at the post count, view a couple previous posts if available, and look if there's an actual question asked before wasting my time/ energy on replying.

Sometimes I even get a gut feeling that the new posters are often established members creating an alias for such inflammatory threads. No proof off course but just the writing styles used appear familiar.

 

[Analog Kid]

Can you provide some examples to this? I will say that the so called hit and run trolling tactics can be annoying but I've not come across any recently but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

I would recommend reporting those threads that you see as trolling. There's a lower threshold for new members to post controversial content. That is if you have a positive track record here at MR but create a thread that is provocative it may pass muster, but if a new member does it w/o any track record it will probably get zapped.


I'm not against this but I do think it could have some unforeseen consequences.

• How high do you set it? In an extreme example, setting it to 50 posts or 1 week waiting period would be counter productive and frustrate new members to a high degree that they'll just leave.
• There is a sizeable number of members who've been here for long time, who mostly read, but occasionally post and rarely create threads - that would unfairly target them.
• For people who want to join to just to stir the pot that means they'll be posting +1 type content to get around the limitation. The time period will mean they create an account and just move on to another site until that period expires. We see this all the time with spammers, that is, they come here register and the account is dormant for months, and then they start spamming.
• We have very active support forums, and if someone joined here to get help, particularly an immediate or critical issue - having this will prevent them from getting that help. This would be unfortunate simply because we have such a knowledgeable and helpful member base.

In summary, while on paper it sounds like a good idea, I see this, punishing the innocent with maybe slightly inconveniencing but not stopping the guilty.

I’m specifically avoiding the use of the phrase “trolling” because it’s not always clear what the intent is. For the same reason, I’m not going to list examples, because someone is going to debate what’s a legitimate opinion and what isn’t. Trolling isn’t about stepping into a forum and screaming expletives anymore, it‘s about emphasizing and exploiting existing divisions with the goal of creating strife. This is one of those “know it when I see it” kind of things. The pattern is pervasive enough to raise questions— not necessarily about whether any particular post is well meaning, but about how they can all possibly be.

it was said before that the reason of not limiting new member's ability to create threads was because many people that are having a specific issue with an Apple device would create an account just to ask about that problem.

Yeah, this is a legitimate concern…

Maybe limit the forums new members could create threads? I don’t know if that solves anything, but seeking help for apple products eliminates a number of forums that don’t specifically have anything to do with hardware or software assistance.

And this might go a ways towards helping, but it will require the mods to hold the line in killing threads that are misclassified, and there’s probably a workaround by just asking insincere questions.

For people who want to join to just to stir the pot that means they'll be posting +1 type content to get around the limitation. The time period will mean they create an account and just move on to another site until that period expires. We see this all the time with spammers, that is, they come here register and the account is dormant for months, and then they start spamming.

Yeah, that’s a risk, but at least it requires people to expend effort before launching a disruptive thread. How can I distinguish between legitimate debate and discourse and an insincere poking of the bear? How much you’re willing to commit to the discussion.

I've noticed an increase of such new posters in the MBP/MBA fora as of late. Thread titles usually contain a controversial "statement" wrapped up as a fact to elicit maximum emotional response. Now days I look at the post count, view a couple previous posts if available, and look if there's an actual question asked before wasting my time/ energy on replying.

Sometimes I even get a gut feeling that the new posters are often established members creating an alias for such inflammatory threads. No proof off course but just the writing styles used appear familiar.

Yep. And these threads dominate the front page “trending topics” for days at a time. Meanwhile the OP has likely created another identity to start another dumpster fire somewhere else.

 

[antiprotest]

I’m specifically avoiding the use of the phrase “trolling” because it’s not always clear what the intent is. For the same reason, I’m not going to list examples, because someone is going to debate what’s a legitimate opinion and what isn’t. Trolling isn’t about stepping into a forum and screaming expletives anymore, it‘s about emphasizing and exploiting existing divisions with the goal of creating strife. This is one of those “know it when I see it” kind of things. The pattern is pervasive enough to raise questions— not necessarily about whether any particular post is well meaning, but about how they can all possibly be.


Yeah, this is a legitimate concern…


And this might go a ways towards helping, but it will require the mods to hold the line in killing threads that are misclassified, and there’s probably a workaround by just asking insincere questions.


Yeah, that’s a risk, but at least it requires people to expend effort before launching a disruptive thread. How can I distinguish between legitimate debate and discourse and an insincere poking of the bear? How much you’re willing to commit to the discussion.

Yep. And these threads dominate the front page “trending topics” for days at a time. Meanwhile the OP has likely created another identity to start another dumpster fire somewhere else.

Would it help to limit how many new threads newbies can start? If they have a legitimate and urgent question they shouldn't need to start more than 1 or 2 new threads.

Or do the people you are talking about start only one new thread and disappear? I have also noticed the threads you are talking about, and also noticed that many are new, but I have not checked their actual stats.

 

[Analog Kid]

Would it help to limit how many new threads newbies can start? If they have a legitimate and urgent question they shouldn't need to start more than 1 or 2 new threads.

Or do the people you are talking about start only one new thread and disappear? I have also noticed the threads you are talking about, and also noticed that many are new, but I have not check their actual stats.

I’m not sure it would help to limit the new thread count. I haven’t tracked a lot of these users forward in time, but I’ve clicked on the post history of enough to see that there often isn’t one.

 

[Alpha Centauri]

Or do the people you are talking about start only one new thread and disappear? I have also noticed the threads you are talking about, and also noticed that many are new, but I have not check their actual stats.

I know the reply I'm answering was to the OP.

My observation has been that the authors create a new account exclusively for a particular single thread. Usually they may have 1-3 posts in total but only to keep a particular thread alive in the first few pages, after which the thread starts de-laminating into its own argumentative, self sustaining entity.

 

[James_C]

It’s a tricky one, I have been a member here for 20 years, but still remember this forum was super useful to me when I purchased my first Mac ( a MDD G4 Powermac ), I asked a number of questions and the community helped me through those early stages. So I agree that we should not put too many roadblocks to new users.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

In the twice yearly report on numbers of posts, post counts, threads that note how many posts some members have made, (which comprises an incredible volume of work kindly written, researched and assembled these days, by @chown33, and - prior to that, by @Doctor Q) - very often, a pie chart of post numbers is also included.

This measures the percentages of members that have fallen into each category of post numbers.

The vast majority of these - off hand, I don't recall the exact, or precise, statistic - are MR members who have made one post, or, have made between one and five posts, and this category comprises an enormous percentage of all members of MR.

A great many members (I was one such) initially join MR simply because they have a question about Apple, or an Apple product, and this seems like a good place where an answer might be found.

Certainly, this was why I joined initially; I had just bought an Apple MBP - a classic "switcher" and I had questions, as Apple differed quite a bit from the Windows world I was more familiar with.

Once their question has been answered, many of them see no further reason to remain.

Personally, I would not care much for such a threshold (number of posts) to be put in place, as it would serve to discourage those who originally join the forum - in good faith - because they merely wish to find help, or information, or an answer to a query about an Apple product; after all, the forum exists to facilitate discussion on Apple, and Apple products, and is home to a great many enthusiasts and experts, many of whom are quite generous with their knowledge and expertise.

Anyway, I would not favor anything that would serve to discourage newcomers from joining the forum - or that would serve to make it more difficult to join - who simply wish to ask a question, or seek some clarification, or information on Apple and its products.

 

[KaliYoni]

Can we up the post count necessary to start a thread? Or have a mandatory waiting period or something?

I think this is an interesting article about the tension between making asking questions online easy and maintaining discussion quality. I'm not sure the authors' specific recommendations would work well here but their analysis could point the way to steps MR might take to raise the signal to noise ratio in its forums.

The findings point to practical advice for those seeking to develop robust online communities.

“You want a community where there are not only good questions asked but answers to those questions,” Bassamboo says. “So you want to raise the bar of asking a question by penalizing weak or vague questions, resulting in more pinpointed, specific questions. That’s where it’s worth expending some effort and energy.”

For example, a community could go as far as blocking the IP addresses of those whose questions are repeatedly considered weak. Or a community might seek to improve the proportion of questions answered by directing questions to certain participants who are more likely to provide a good answer. “If the system knows you might have the answer, it should be structured to match questions with you,” Bassamboo says.

Sharma notes another, even more effective way high-profile communities are boosting answer rates: “On Apple’s platform, the cost of asking questions isn’t very high. So they’ve spent some money placing their own representatives on the platform to answer harder questions. That way it avoids the situation where people with the hard questions never get an answer because it was never viewed by someone knowledgeable enough to answer it.”

Product Q&A Forums Hold a Lot of Promise. Here’s How to Make Them Work.

The key to these online communities, where users can ask and answer questions, is how many questions get useful answers.

insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu