(June 10, 2009 at 10:35 am)Tiberius Wrote:Quote:If I do it just a bit that's still going to be a lot of 'fluff posts' simply because I (comparatively) have so many posts.I think Bef explained this and you missed the point entirely. Saying "I have a lot of posts so I am going to have a lot of fluff posts" is not a good argument because it uses absolute amounts rather than relative amounts.
But my point was that it is of course relative. So the fact I have absolutely more 'fluff posts' (simply because I have so many posts) doesn't mean I have relatively a lot - it may just look like I have 'a lot' (relatively) because I have so many posts.
E.G: Someone who has 10 million posts and has 1000 'fluff posts' and someone else like "Wow....1000 'fluff posts' - what a spammer!" - but relatively speaking - that's nothing!!
1000 may be a lot of 'fluff posts' (because it's simply an awful lot) - but not when the poster (in this hypothetical example) has 10 million posts!
My point is that it is indeed relative. So the fact I have many 'fluff posts' does not imply that I do it a lot if it's actually relatively a small(/er) amount, it's simply still absolutely a lot because I have 3000 posts (and do 'fluff post' to some extent (or so I'm told - I'm not sure exactly what qualifies for it or where the 'cut-off point' is exacty between 'fluffing' and 'non fluffing' - like I said, threads don't tend to get closed here and if they've already died, I would think that would he a different matter? (for example))).
Quote:Your argument goes (and correct me if I'm wrong) that person A with 100 posts might have 1 fluff post, and person B with 1000 posts might have 10 fluff posts, so person B has more fluff posts because he has more actual posts. This is true, but is not a good argument because both people have the "fluff ratio" of 1:100.
No my point is that the fact I have absolutely a lot of fluffs doesn't mean I have a high fluff ratio. Out of the near 3000 posts I have - a very large amount of them are big posts containing arguments, I'd certainly argue that I'm not exactly a 'fluffer'. It's easier to find more fluff posts when I have a lot of posts. This, as you say - does not mean I have a large fluff-ratio!
Quote:The point Bef was trying to make was that people like Eilonnwy have a very small fluff ratio, whilst you have a larger fluff ratio.
Maybe so - but it's easier to see the 'fluff ratio' average out when you've done very many posts (I'm aware that Elionnwy doesn't ever tend to post what is described as 'fluffing' yes, but if a topic has already died (and has died ages ago) I don't really see what the problem is if I'm just continuing the conversation, if it takes fluffing when the alternative is to just ignore what's going on in there.
I may describe myself as someone who - "Tends to type large posts with arguments and opinions and if ever does 'fluff' - does 'selective fluffing' based on the fact that the topic has kind of died anyway or it's just a 'funny video' so there's not much else to say on that topic anyway (and I add more than "lol", I give at least some opinion even then)."
And furthermore I don't think my 'fluff posting' is as mad as it's being made out to be, if you're talking about the ratio - yes I have quite a few but I have 3000 posts, but as a ratio I don't think I actually have that many. And if you have less posts it may take longer for the 'fluff posts' to average out, as I said.
Quote:Amount of posts doesn't come into it.I agree. It shouldn't. And I don't think my 'fluff ratio' is that bad. I have almost 3000 posts and I don't think that many of them are 'fluffs' considering all the averaging out over time. An absolute ton of them are pretty damn big and not merely a 'fluff post'.
And actually I've been told on quite a few occasions that my posts tend to be relatively big. You yourself, Adrian, have said that: "EvF is quite possibly the only person who could win an argument just by typing so much the other person loses interest in the entire topic.[...] Damn you and your keyboard!"
So that's 1. Typing a lot in a single post, constructively (to the best of my ability) and in an argument and 2. I'm not losing interesting in the topic there (in that example) - I'm on topic. So It's not like I'm killing a thread...so
...Not exactly 'fluff posting' - and my point here is that: I'd argue that an awful lot of my posts are like that. Not as many 'fluff posts' that are made out. And I can't think of any that derails the topic any more than it is, and if anything it may stop the thread dying if it was otherwise going to - or if it's already dead, it may even help it 'take off' again.
'Constructive fluffing' one might call in the sense that, at best it helps keep the thread alive (or stop it from dying) - and at worst it doesn't make the topic any more derailed than it already is.
I think it's very easy to cherry-pick my posts. And if you go ahead and do that, I don't see the problem anyway? I don't see what harm I am doing to an already dead topic when the alternative is to ignore it? ( Besides, as I said, it might 'take off' again if it stays active).
I'd argue that a large percentage of my posts are like this one - when my posts aren't small they do tend to be larger, and not 'fluff posts', but arguments - and ratio-wise I think I'm doing pretty good to be honest.
EvF
