Why limit post counts to 1000 w/o checking profile?.. DU discriminates?

[DB1]

By putting the cutoff at 1000 don't we create a sub class of under 1000 posters? Just a thought why not post the members current post count number?
The reason I ask is I am here daily for a couple years with just a few hundred posts, some of which I could have done better, but others who have been here a far less period have 1000 plus promoting whatever 24/7. Maybe a membership sign on date and total post number next to ID would be better?

[Make7]

1. Fuck you, newbie. ( n/t )

:sarcasm: (just in case)

[JNelson6563]

31. lol

DU ranks highly in smart-assery dept. One of the many reasons I come STILL come here. :toast:

Julie

[ixion]

2. bandwidth

it takes a great deal of memory to do count query after count query like that.

[tachyon]

4. More than a long integer? 4 bytes?

??

[Hubert H. Hubert]

21. 32 bits

At one post per second, nonstop 24/7, it would take 68 years to reach the limit of a 32 bit signed int (136 years for unsigned).

Just in case you were wondering.

[ixion]

22. to be more specific: database resources

you've got do to a query to obtain the number of posts a member has. Something like:

Select COUNT(ROWID) as count from posts WHERE MemberID = 0001

Now multiply that by the number of posts in a thread.

It starts to consume a great deal of memory. Whereas if you do this:

Select COUNT(ROWID) as count from posts WHERE MemberID = 0001 Limit 1000

You save a whopping load of memory.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

29. Problem with your post..

The database has to do a read for every post regardless of where you set the (more than), when you load this it has to read my info to see if I even have 1000+ post..

Now if, on the other hand its doing a real time read of post by a table scan then it would be a problem but thats a real rookie way to set up a database! The SP for 'post message' should increment a counter on a cell in the user table..

[ixion]

33. only InnoDB types scan every entry... MyISAM doesn't do that.

there's a huge difference in performance. Using the aggregate COUNT function is very fast for MyISAM tables, and very, very, very slow for InnoDB type tables.

[tachyon]

32. How can it determine if it's under 1000 without reading it?

??

[ixion]

34. it's the other way around... it limits the result set... that is, as soon as it reaches 1K

it returns the result, rather than continuing through the entire db. Make sense?

[Recursion]

36. And before anyone gets a clever idea to save the post count in the user table...

...that never works. You always wind up with bad data that way. Never store counts of countable resources. Except when it's a good idea to.

What you could do, though, is store a "1000+" flag in the user table. The posting process checks if the post is greater than 1000 and the flag is not set; if so, it sets it. Then the display code only has to look for that flag and won't bother counting in the first place.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. They used to show the whole post count...

Back when DU was new.

But it got unwieldy when people got up into the 10K range...

So this was decided on.

All of the info you seek is in the profile.

It's not intended to be discriminatory.

[DB1]

8. Thanks for the info. I new there was probably a good reason.

Maybe it should be revisited in light of all the new traffic.

[Breeze54]

23. DU goes into Defcon I daily now, as it is with the high traffic.

That would just make it worse.

:hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Some people really took the numbers to heart. I mean it just seemed like they

based their self-worth on it. "Ooooh, Look at me. I have lots more posts than anyone in this thread." :P

[RC]

5. Too many just post kicks all over the place to get their post counts up.

very seldom to never saying anything.
Others clog the system with what really should be called spam, never saying anything either.

Anyway, don't worry about it. Be reasonable with your posts and you will be fine. (Not like that idiot in #1 above me.)

[DB1]

Thanks. That above comes with the territory I guess.

[Zywiec]

7. K & R!!

:kick:

[CreekDog]

17. Some people write thousands of words

without saying anything. :eyes:

[Dr. Strange]

27. And most of their words...

just consist of criticizing great music, like, say, Rush.
Just saying...

:hide:

[CreekDog]

38. it's true that's wasted effort

since the truth is already self-evident. :evilgrin:

:pals:

[Dr. Strange]

44. Shouldn't you be watching someone shower?

[Boojatta]

6. Why do you propose showing the total number of posts?

It could show the number of posts up to nine and say "(10 + posts)" for people who have more than nine posts. Of course, there would then be a competitor for the Brazillion joke: "You don't trust me? But I've contributed more than nine posts!"

[DB1]

9. Combine the number of posts with membership date gives info...

Somebody becomes a member in March 08 and has 500 of posts they may be less credible than a 1 year member with 500 posts. imho

[enlightenment]

10. As the poster above suggested,

click on the profile icon and you'll see the date they joined and the number of posts (for the 1000+ crowd). If it says 2003, before July 3rd (or 6th, don't recall which) it just means they registered before they changed the way they listed post count (that was the day they did that, I think).

There are, unfortunately, a lot of people who hide their profiles. Considering that you can control what people see, that's a bit suspicious in my book, but I suppose they feel they have good reason.

Credibility isn't really about post count, though - and I know you realise that. It is tempting to dismiss someone who has a new membership date and a high post-count because you have to wonder where they find the time to make thoughtful posts. Maybe they aren't and in that case, fair to dismiss them. If I'm bothered enough by someone, I'll do a search on their username and get an overview of what sort of posts they make; that usually resolves the question. You do need to be a contributing member of DU to access the advanced features, though.

None of us are perfect; I know I've made my fair share of "me, too!" posts and I rarely write long, discursive essays or share my inner-most feelings about something with everyone (not criticising those who do, it's just not me). It is frustrating right now, particularly in GD-P. Things will settle down. Really. This too shall pass.

[alstephenson]

11. I'm a much happier DU'er since I blocked GD-P.

Try it, you'll like it!

[Make7]

12. RE: people who hide their profiles

It is possible to determine when someone signed up at DU even if their profile is hidden. This can be done because the member ID numbers are assigned sequentially to people as they register.

To use myself as an example, if you mouse over the icon to send me a private message (), you will see by the link's web address that my user ID is 145813. All you need to do is type in user ID's next to (or close to) mine in a view profile link.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=145812

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=145814


You will find that user 145812 joined on Jun 18th 2004 and user 145814 also joined on Jun 18th 2004. Guess when I registered?

- Make7

[crispini]

13. Well, well, isn't that clever!

:D

[enlightenment]

16. Ah! Interesting!

Thanks for the info! I try not to conflate post count and membership date - I'm not a heavy poster, but I've been around DU for a long time . . . silly really, I can't even remember when I signed up, though I know it was about 6 months after I started lurking. CRS!

That said; the one doesn't necessarily relate to the other. Content is a more accurate measure than quantity, I think.

[Make7]

30. Well, if something doesn't seem quite right about an unfamiliar poster...

... it sometimes is interesting to determine how long they have been around. But measuring someone merely based on their post count, their length of membership, or some relation of the two is a bit silly. Even if they do disagree with something (or everything) that has been said.

The inclination for me to reply is much greater when I strongly disagree with something that has been posted - but I do (hopefully) have the ability to outline some reasoning for my position. Although if I had a low post count, no doubt I would invariably be wrong regardless of what I had to say. :)

- Make7

[LostinVA]

35. I don't trust any poster without a profile

[tammywammy]

39. I don't really either LostinVA

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

40. They don't have to have any personal info in the profile

Just join date, post cost, sex or location is enough for me. To me, it seems like they're hiding more than their profile, if they disable it.

[tammywammy]

41. Agreed

That's all I have in mine: join date, # of posts, female & Texas. :shrug:

[awoke_in_2003]

42. "a lot of people who hide their profiles"

And a lot of them are people who have been here two months. They are usually the rabid fans of (name a candidate) that have made this such a "wonderful" place lately

[CreekDog]

18. They should show how many Brazillion posts people have

:think:

[madinmaryland]

26. Really?

January 24th, 2009. In the oval office of the new Democratic president:

The Secretary of Defense is giving the President the daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, three Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

The President's staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and says, "One Brazilian is too many! I am glad that we are beginning to draw down our presence in Iraq and put an end to this long national nightmare."

:evilgrin:

[CreekDog]

37. I swear you are a bot

:rofl:

[Terran]

43. That was a Bush joke originally.

Silly to change it as no one else could possibly be that dumb.

[aquart]

14. Big kids been picking on you?

So you want it known if you've been here five years with three posts or whatever? To give people a different basis for being snotty?

Of all the worthless things to fuss over.

[DB1]

20. Actually, no. Most my dicussions here have been nice.

But there are the occasional few I read or watch others respond to that are a waste of time. Why are you so angry?

[CreekDog]

15. You only have 306 posts

Are you a freeper?

(I j/k) :pals:?

[DB1]

19. No. But I guess someone needed to ask.

[Dr. Strange]

28. The other thing that's nice about seeing who has a low post count is...

you can welcome them to DU.

So, welcome to DU DB1!

[Make7]

25. A couple of DU 1.0 threads that may be of interest...

 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID24/1510.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID24/1820.html

- Make7

[Javaman]

45. Nice post, Hitler-newbie!! LOL nt