Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,508
Registered: ‎06-11-2011

Re: What is the problem with new posters?


@Cakers3 wrote:

@Pearlee wrote:

@reiki604 wrote:

@Pearlee wrote:

@hellodali wrote:

Personally I think it is great to have new posters.  They bring some new ideas to the forum.  Another good thing is it shows the forum is still useful and hopefully QVC will keep it around for a long time. 

 

Welcome anyone new or anyone who doesn't post often.  Please don't be strangers.


@hellodali  I don't think anyone has a problem with legitimate new posters.   It's the ones who are "reincarnations" of other posters or who are just trolls coming to make trouble that people have a problem with.


Who you respond to is on you. If the obvious trolls were ignored, the threads would fade away into oblivion but there are always those posters who cannot just let it go and are somehow compelled to answer, argue with or have a conversation with others on the troll's thread, thus not letting the thread die a natural death.


@reiki604  Well let's see. You just posted this statement above: " I still have complete control over what posts I respond to or not. I can give my opinions but have responsibility only for myself, my actions and reactions."  So let me be - I'll post or not post as I see fit. 


Oh brother.  More nit-picking.   I cannot imagine picking apart every post and even more silly thread titles.  Sheesh-I cannot picture myself carrying around such intensity over a silly chat board.


LOL!   I think this very post of yours indicates otherwise.  LOL!

Honored Contributor
Posts: 13,330
Registered: ‎06-17-2015

Re: What is the problem with new posters?


@Dash wrote:

@Cakers3 wrote:

@Dash  Hi - are you reading negative posts about posters on this forum or in others?

 

It's been a complete turnaround here with the strict mods so I don't see too much picking at posters anymore.

 

Just join in-it's much more tame than it used to be but there are nice people here.

You just have to roll with it somethimes.

 

 


Nothing has been directed at me specifically. What I've seen are various comments throughout the QVC board complaining about there being so many new posters recently.  I've noticed these the last few days.  I've seen these comments on some of the topics I've posted on.  I post very infrequently and thought these concerns were addressed to new and infrequent posters like me. Based on the responses to my OP I understand now that the concerns are directed at certain posters who are trying to cause trouble and not all new and infrequent posters. 


@Dash  Ok.  Got it.  Hope you are enjoying your time here.Smiley Happy

""Out beyond the ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing, there is a field. I will meet you there." -Rumi
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,463
Registered: ‎07-11-2010

Re: What is the problem with new posters?

[ Edited ]

A word of advice to "new" posters. Be leery of posters who live on the boards 24/7, start numerous nonsense threads daily, and the ones who are condescending/know it all/I'm smarter than you/I WILL have the final say posters. :catwink:

 

Edited to add that there are some who are nasty most of the time, but will start threads looking for sympathy when they have a problem.

I promise to remind myself every day that I am strong, courageous, and resilient.
Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,189
Registered: ‎01-04-2016

Re: What is the problem with new posters?


@Marp wrote:

I don't have a problem with new members posting but I am suspicious of "new" posters with a sign up date from 2010 (the default date after the board change) and their first post is in 2017, and that post is a much repeated complaint about Q, a really out there complaint or a divisive post on a hot topic.


@MarpThere is a person who posted on the "Divorce" thread called Truffles and she has a sign up date from 2010.  She's legit yet fits your profile since she has very few posts. People have busy and varied lives and they come and go, lose interest and then return. Very unfair to be suspicious.  

 

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,579
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: What is the problem with new posters?


@truffle wrote:

@Marp wrote:

I don't have a problem with new members posting but I am suspicious of "new" posters with a sign up date from 2010 (the default date after the board change) and their first post is in 2017, and that post is a much repeated complaint about Q, a really out there complaint or a divisive post on a hot topic.


@MarpThere is a person who posted on the "Divorce" thread called Truffles and she has a sign up date from 2010.  She's legit yet fits your profile since she has very few posts. People have busy and varied lives and they come and go, lose interest and then return. Very unfair to be suspicious.  

 


Based on board history I'll stand by my statement although I would be interested in knowing how you know s/he is "legit" and not a disgruntled recognizable poster using a secondary nic or a regular poster that just signed in with an alternate account.

The more I learn the more I realize how little I know.
Are you setting an example or being an example?
Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,189
Registered: ‎01-04-2016

Re: What is the problem with new posters?


@Marp wrote:

@truffle wrote:

@Marp wrote:

I don't have a problem with new members posting but I am suspicious of "new" posters with a sign up date from 2010 (the default date after the board change) and their first post is in 2017, and that post is a much repeated complaint about Q, a really out there complaint or a divisive post on a hot topic.


@MarpThere is a person who posted on the "Divorce" thread called Truffles and she has a sign up date from 2010.  She's legit yet fits your profile since she has very few posts. People have busy and varied lives and they come and go, lose interest and then return. Very unfair to be suspicious.  

 


Based on board history I'll stand by my statement although I would be interested in knowing how you know s/he is "legit" and not a disgruntled recognizable poster using a secondary nic or a regular poster that just signed in with an alternate account.


Because when I signed up that nickname was already taken so I chose the one that was lower case and singular. @Marp

Valued Contributor
Posts: 584
Registered: ‎07-01-2016

Re: What is the problem with new posters?

I'll admit I could not figure out how to post here for years because my email was already in use?  Then one day I used my old super defunct hotmail...ding ding ding.  I can't even access that anymore, go figure?

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,579
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: What is the problem with new posters?


@truffle wrote:

@Marp wrote:

@truffle wrote:

@Marp wrote:

I don't have a problem with new members posting but I am suspicious of "new" posters with a sign up date from 2010 (the default date after the board change) and their first post is in 2017, and that post is a much repeated complaint about Q, a really out there complaint or a divisive post on a hot topic.


@MarpThere is a person who posted on the "Divorce" thread called Truffles and she has a sign up date from 2010.  She's legit yet fits your profile since she has very few posts. People have busy and varied lives and they come and go, lose interest and then return. Very unfair to be suspicious.  

 


Based on board history I'll stand by my statement although I would be interested in knowing how you know s/he is "legit" and not a disgruntled recognizable poster using a secondary nic or a regular poster that just signed in with an alternate account.


Because when I signed up that nickname was already taken so I chose the one that was lower case and singular. @Marp


@truffle, that a name has been reserved is meaningless in regard to legitimacy.  The truffles poster from the divorce thread has a sign up date of 2010 and only 11 posts with the latest previous post in 2014.  That suggests to me that s/he is a regular poster that perhaps due to subject matter and what s/he had to say is not something s/he wanted associated with a known nic.

 

Because there are supportable reasons why a poster may use an alternate nic that does not mean a particular nic, in this case truffles, is legitimate or not but the combination of sign up date and lack of posts are reason for suspicion or at least skepticism IMO.

The more I learn the more I realize how little I know.
Are you setting an example or being an example?
Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,189
Registered: ‎01-04-2016

Re: What is the problem with new posters?

@MarpIt can also mean that since her sign up date she had other things far more important going on in her life. 

Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,067
Registered: ‎05-15-2010

Re: What is the problem with new posters?


@Marp wrote:

@truffle wrote:

@Marp wrote:

@truffle wrote:

@Marp wrote:

I don't have a problem with new members posting but I am suspicious of "new" posters with a sign up date from 2010 (the default date after the board change) and their first post is in 2017, and that post is a much repeated complaint about Q, a really out there complaint or a divisive post on a hot topic.


@MarpThere is a person who posted on the "Divorce" thread called Truffles and she has a sign up date from 2010.  She's legit yet fits your profile since she has very few posts. People have busy and varied lives and they come and go, lose interest and then return. Very unfair to be suspicious.  

 


Based on board history I'll stand by my statement although I would be interested in knowing how you know s/he is "legit" and not a disgruntled recognizable poster using a secondary nic or a regular poster that just signed in with an alternate account.


Because when I signed up that nickname was already taken so I chose the one that was lower case and singular. @Marp


@truffle, that a name has been reserved is meaningless in regard to legitimacy.  The truffles poster from the divorce thread has a sign up date of 2010 and only 11 posts with the latest previous post in 2014.  That suggests to me that s/he is a regular poster that perhaps due to subject matter and what s/he had to say is not something s/he wanted associated with a known nic.

 

Because there are supportable reasons why a poster may use an alternate nic that does not mean a particular nic, in this case truffles, is legitimate or not but the combination of sign up date and lack of posts are reason for suspicion or at least skepticism IMO.

 

Wow, Marp, you've really researched this.