Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › A case for a minimum post count to start a thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A case for a minimum post count to start a thread.

post #1 of 26
4/8/11 at 11:19am
Thread Starter 
We all hate special flower threads. These threads are usually started by people with 10 or fewer posts. Solution, only allow people with a minimum of 10 (or more?) posts to start a thread. This would force people to find appropriate threads to ask their questions and limit their ability to spam the main board with uninteresting questions. I only really frequent SW&D so most of these example are from there but here's some thing that could've been avoided. Lacoste shirt New Kicks Identifications from gossip blogs... ...or from amazon Posted in MW and then SW&D Or, I think, the best example, this guy whose 29 posts included 11 new threads (two of which were about the blue shirt Derek Jeter was wearing) You've all seen them. I'm sure there's just as many in MW. At the very least, lets post links to the most hated special flower posts so we can rage about them. Sincerely,
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 26
4/8/11 at 11:24am
more like you shouldn't be able to make threads for a month at least.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 26
4/8/11 at 11:27am
flower threads serve a purpose. they allow SF members to rag on the person posting them!
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 26
4/8/11 at 11:31am
I could name a dozen members who shouldn't be able to create a thread no matter their post count.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 26
4/8/11 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Version 7 View Post
I could name a dozen members who shouldn't be able to create a thread no matter their post count.

Reply
Reply
post #6 of 26
4/8/11 at 11:34am
Derek, what is she wearing today? PM me.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 26
4/8/11 at 11:37am
The worst are the ones where they post a picture of a celebrity wearing a certain article of clothing and expect everyone to know the exact brand and where to buy it.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 26
4/8/11 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMediaMan View Post
The worst are the ones where they post a picture of a celebrity wearing a certain article of clothing and expect everyone to know the exact brand and where to buy it.
In their defense, I'm sure 90% of people here could name the exact garment and brand though it can be irritating nonetheless.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 26
4/8/11 at 12:01pm
As a bonus, this would cut down on the vast numbers of spam threads that clog up the works.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 26
4/8/11 at 12:02pm
If they actually implement this rule, I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for my viagra needs..
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 26
4/8/11 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post
As a bonus, this would cut down on the vast numbers of spam threads that clog up the works.

like da movie one you just posted in!
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 26
4/8/11 at 12:03pm
u following me bro?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 26
4/8/11 at 12:05pm
I've been advocating a minimum post count in order to post in threads, but that's fallen on deaf ears thus far.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 26
4/8/11 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo_Version 7 View Post
I could name a dozen members who shouldn't be able to create a thread no matter their post count.

ahem

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post
As a bonus, this would cut down on the vast numbers of spam threads that clog up the works.

they would find a way around it somehow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas View Post
I've been advocating a minimum post count in order to post in threads, but that's fallen on deaf ears thus far.

how about 21,600

op, even if this idea is serious 10 would be way too low a requirement one could get there in 2 min or less
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 26
4/8/11 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post
u following me bro?

turn around!!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › A case for a minimum post count to start a thread.