What is the percentage, and how much actual time though?

I reckon that's the BB version of "If a tree falls in the forest but nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" :lol:

The way I heard it the tree does make a sound but it doesn't make a noise.

A sound doesn't have to be heard.

A noise (to be a noise) has to be heard.

You fuckin' bean counters drive me nuts. Does it matter what the real percentage is? What matters is if I just stop going to the Celler because of my perception that it sucks when people spam the New Posts list. It just fucking sucks. Can you measure sucks? Perception is marketing reality.

So, it's not a "waste of time" that's all I wanted to know. It only takes a second or two to scan a screen for threads you want to read. Unless you're a slow reader, I guess.

I think the addition of AG'ers (and anyone) to this board is a good thing. Many probably agree now, and will in the future.

And I don't think there has been a lot of spamming going on. There have been threads that have dropped off the screen, but even those were efforts.

I think the difference is that AG'ers like to debate in their threads. People here may think they are arguments, tied to bad feelings; when really we've all be close message-board acquaintances for years, and this is how we roll. One thread we argue, the next we laugh, and the next advise each other. It's all fun.

It's even fun if there is a spammer that we can all gang up on, or ignore together.

Some people stay away from message boards due to all the foul language found in posts.

I think more people, more posts, and more activity is a good thing! It means your community is a thriving metropolis. By comparison, if nobody posted here, there wouldn't be much human interaction, would there?

I agree, there appears to be a huge disparity in the perception of acceptable message board use. My opinion, and you don't have to agree with me, but it is a public message board, and my opinion is that if you have to scan all new posts in order to find any signs of human activity then your threshold of expectations is skewed towards the low side.

Are fewer posts always better? If nobody ever posted here would the site be perfect?

A good message board will find a healthy balance. The Cellar has found that balance.

At the one extreme, you have places like Fark where hundreds of people are fighting to try to make their mark and be heard above the din, all making stupid one line posts. You can read through a typical thread on Fark and find one or two posts with merit, but the rest is crap. Fark has hundreds of active users. That sounds like the world you are advocating. I'm not interested in it.

Your thriving Metropolis analogy is an interesting one. I don't want to live in New York City. I prefer living in a smaller place where I can put down some roots and run into people I know when I go out.

Of course we want the Cellar to be active. New posts are good. Activity is good. But the activity should be good activity, not activity just for activity's sake.

I agree.


It isn't. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Again, I agree.

Who says what is "good" activity? Maybe there should be a book burning... I mean thread deleting mod here. Who can be trusted to figure out what is "good"?

And... what's wrong with my home town? NYC is one of the greatest cities in the world.

It sounded like you were saying "The more activity the better." If that's not what you are saying, then I obviously misunderstood.

@glatt: My question was a hypoythetical: is less activity always better? Same thing, looked at from the other side. I agree with what you said, the board will find a balance, what is known in nature as homeostasis.

And there are Farks and Slashdots for that NY feel. Some people like to visit NY, but live in Springfield.

Oh well, guess I don't fit in here... maybe I should just move along, then. Buh-bye!


Just kidding, I'm stayin.

Yes, me too, see you guys later ::: leaves :::