The 20 Character Requirement

[Chris_Colucci]

[quote=“The_Myth, post:66, topic:217565”]
The position that nothing less than 20 characters has value, but all of a sudden at 21 characters, it has transmogrified into something substantive, is disingenuous.[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying, and sure, with some number-based rules an otherwise-aribitrary number needs to be decided on to put the policy into effect. Drinking age. Why 21, not 20? Speed limit. Why 55, not 58? Common Olympic plate. Why 45 pounds, not 35?

But… as I’ve said time and time again throughout this thread, nobody has put up an example of a useful post that fell below the limit. That would indicate that the limit is set at a reasonable place. If the character minimum was 30 or 45 instead of 20, then there might be more solid ground to base an “against” argument on.

Frankly, the position should be that it’s your forum and that’s the way you want it. End of discussion.

If I could’ve done an “/thread” and put it that way, I might have, but I have a feeling it wouldn’t have been too well-received. But “our house, our rules” is, at the end of the day, an unavoidable (and, to some, unpleasant) truth. The reasoning behind those rules, though, is what I was addressing from my very first post in this thread. Make no mistake, it is about forum quality.

@The_Myth

Trying to convince posters that subjective quality can be measured by capricious character counts is counter intuitive, a conundrum, and confuzzling.

Agreed. But the post limit doesn’t entirely decide quality. As I’ve said, it’s a basic first step to help.

[Chris_Colucci]

@Chushin

Left side of the T-Nation mouth:

We insist upon substantive, meaningful posts on our discussion forum!

Right side of that same mouth:

Post your comments to this insightful article on Facebook, which is now standard practice for nearly every outlet that publishes articles! You can also start a thread to discuss that article on the forum if you want to.

Fixed that for you, because those are not mutually exclusive.

EDIT: Not sure if this is ironic or not, but “Fixed that for you.” is not 20 characters, it’s 19. So I had to add an additional thought and expand the point I was making.

[Lonnie123]

Really? “Nearly every other outlet” that publishes articles only allows comments on the articles via a completely disconnected Facebook article link that isnt reachable through a link in the article itself? Do they also go back and wash away all the content that was created in those previous comment sections?

Come now, Chris…

If anything, they have facebook comments as the comment section, integrated under the article. I’m happy to provide examples since you seem to be so keen on that… But that would require linking to another website, which is forbidden here (another fun rule)

[Lonnie123]

Because I’m a nice guy I did the leg work for us:

Lifting Sites:

Mens Health - Has a facebook integrated comments section directly under the article

BBing.com - Has a facebook integrated comments section directly under the article

Other “big” sites online, not lifting related

CNN - Does not have a comments section

HuffPo - Has a facebook integrated comments section directly under the article

FoxNews - Has a multi-platform integrated comments section directly under the article. Can log in to comment via site account twitter, facebook, google, etc…

The Atlantic - Has a multi-platform integrated comments section directly under the article. Can log in to comment via site account twitter, facebook, google, etc…

MSNBC - Has a multi-platform integrated comments section directly under the article. Can log in to comment via site account, twitter, facebook, google, etc…

Sorry Chris, you (and the powers that be that direct this decision) are wrong on this one. Comment sections are the norm, on the same page as the article, directly underneath it, commonly accessed via logging into the site itself or with another social media account.

Since I have witness over the years that you guys seem to love following trends of the other major sites, I suggest you make this revision post haste.

[T3hPwnisher]

It does when I do it. What browser are you using?

[Cortes]

@Chris_Colucci

EDIT: Not sure if this is ironic or not, but “Fixed that for you.” is not 20 characters, it’s 19. So I had to add an additional thought and expand the point I was making.

Do you not see how ironic it really is?

[Cortes]

@pushharder

@Chris_Colucci

And, to be fair, I’m still waiting for anyone to share an example of a sub-20 character post that was a legitimate contribution to a discussion.

Here’s one example: “patently false.” This was said in response to a claim made by Eddie that was patently false. It was a challenge to him to substantiate his claim. It was a legitimate contribution to the discussion therefore it meets your standards. (Or was the real reason you deleted my post because you strongly disagreed with position in that thread as some of your posts in that thread possibly indicated?)

Do you want more examples?

I already offered an example in post #18 or so of this very thread. But for some reason it doesn’t count.

[Cortes]

@Cortes

@Chris_Colucci

Have there been many instances you’ve run into where a legit, meaningful reply warranted fewer than 20 characters?

Yes. On PWI. All the time.

^^^

What more was gained from my needing to add, “All the time?”

As for your claim that all of the posts you quote did not substantially contribute to the discussion, as Push pointed out, these are LOOOOOONG discussions, and there are really not that many of us participating in most of them, which means most of us are posting a ton of content. When engaged in those kinds of discussions, sometimes you are going to have a very quick, very short, and, wait for it, relevant and on-topic response that does indeed add to the content and fits the context of the thread.

As far as policing, how far would any thread get if most of the posts ended up being under 20 characters? We’d all just be grunting at each other like cavemen. It’s not now, nor was it ever a problem.

As someone said earlier, I would honestly feel better about all of this if you had just said “This is what we decided and it’s our forum, so deal with it.”

[Cortes]

And, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you guys remove the extremely helpful ignore function with the new site rollout? Can you see how some of us might be throwing up our hands at this right now?

I know I am in danger of sounding petulant, so please do not misunderstand me. I love the new site. It is an enormous improvement over its last iteration. What I’m taking umbrage with is, first, what I and apparently a good number of other posters see as an unnecessary obstacle to posting, and, second, the justification for it.

[Cortes]

Okay, I just looked and there does appear to be an ignore function (mute). So I take that back and appreciate your continuing to offer us that function. I’ll need it if Pitttbull ever decides to start posting again.