Thread title, content or user most important?

[Androme]

I've had a lot of "shit thread" but yet lurking more, I can identity various "shit" threads that arn't subjected to the same hurlings so does the thread creator affect the quality of the thread at all?

[pig]

i think its normally the title that intrigues me, which will then make me read on, no specific user really makes me think oh look they have written a thread lets read it, i generally just read each thread, but the title will make me read it first etc.

[Weeks]

I think all the negative rep your getting is unfair. You're not a fantastic poster, but you're not that bad. It's just the rep system be used in ways ultimately detrimental to the forums.

For instance, I'll get neg reped now for posting this.

[Yahwe]

its always content.

this forum is not an excessively populated one. most every thread posted is read. regardless of who posted it.
I post serious and comedy threads. when i post a thread on a certain topic i know i will take neg rep for it. the whole rep system works to stop people posting non stop annoying posts/threads. when i get lots of neg rep i have to pause, stop being controversial and wait while my rep 'heals'

but to be honest androme, you know you post poor quality all the time. what were you thinking with that 'where are my boots' thread? if i did that my rep would get massacred (for good reason).

on a forum with a reasonable amount of people, who in my opinion honestly and fairly bother to read what you post, the point is not who you are but the quality of your posts.

i do not believe that you can look me in the eye and say you have posted quality. neg rep is a comment on your posts, not on you.

[JetLinus]

The only poster that has a real positive influence on me reading a thread is Dace (probably because of his former stories).

I'm never ever reading [football] threads...

[pablissimo]

I read all threads I've not read before, and don't rep anyone unless their post makes me laugh or is of sufficient intellectual quality as to make me read it twice. I will tend to assume threads made by Dace, Dante, Leshy et al are going to engage me more than most others, though it doesn't factor into my browsing.

[Boogster]

I think Androme is quite funny really.

[Structural Integrity]

I'd say it's a 40/40/20 distribution of title/content/user that will ensure thread success.

[Ste]

i don't really care about the thread starter. It mainly depends how bored I am.
I'll always read the topics I've posted in first (with new posts)
then i'll look at ones I've read but still interest me (browser threads don't)
then I'll hover over threads to see what the gist of it is (whether it's spam or not) and go to ones that interest me. (starting with the ones with the most intriguing topics)
then I'll read the rest if I've got time and haven't found anything else to engage with.

The only point thread starter comes in is when i've hovered over a thread and seen an interesting/shit topic and I want to see who posted the crap/funneh/conversation starter. This allows me to make a decision whether the thread may get better after the first post. Generally if it's by Androme2 or Flavius it tends to stay shit, so they get left til last.

So it's definately content, topic, user in that order.
But I tend to read everything eventually anyway so it doesn't matter really.

[LHC]

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=183478
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=183417
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=183545
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=183549

[Weeks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I think Androme is quite funny really.

Agreed. Unfortunately the rest of GD don't see it or don't find it funny. So they neg-rep him. :/

[Nondescript Human]

I think it does matter who posted something quite a bit, though I personally don't (consciously) pay much attention to it.
I would say that people's reactions to a thread (not just whether or not they read it) are determined by about 30/40/30 (title/content/user).
On a bigger board with more threads to read, title would be much more important.

I have no problem with Androme in general, though iirc I might have neg-repped him once for a particularly shitty post.

[Dead_Meat]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

when i get lots of neg rep i have to pause, stop being controversial and wait while my rep 'heals'

You're as shallow as a swimming pool with an inch of water at the bottom.

[Weeks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

when i get lots of neg rep i have to pause, stop being controversial and wait while my rep 'heals'.

This is why the rep system's rubbish.

[LHC]

Thread title is probably less important now than it used to be (because there are fewer threads) but it's still pretty annoying to see titles such as "this is amazing!", "for ****s sake" and "come in here". Logically titled threads which give the gist of the thread are probably going to encourage a successful thread.

Having said that, the thread content itself has to be respectable. A thread titled "Eating Poo" containing information about eating poo is still a rubbish thread.

[JammyJim]

depends if the story of poo eating is a funny one or not.

i still remember the thread about rids having to shave his arse simply because i laughed so much it hurt.

[Nodrog]

I read threads by good posters as well as one's which have an interesting subjectline, or have generated quite a lot of replies. I probably read the initial post of around 30-50% threads here.

[Qdeathstar]

I think that when people see the name Qdeathstar, they think shit.

[Phil^]

personally i couldnt care less who posts the thread. i judge a thread on what its about and what its content is.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

I think that when people see the name Qdeathstar, they think shit.

on the contrary, I think the original post will be shit but it's usually followed by a decent discussion on an interesting topic.
The original poster in such threads usually leaves so many holes in his argument, if you can call it that, that there can be plenty of posts pointing out different ones without running out.
It's a shame, because if he could actually spell and use punctuation, and perhaps read back through the post a couple of times to make sure he isn't talking complete bollocks, it could be a much better post.

[Sarina_Joy]

I at least glance at every thread on here, apart from the ones tagged [football] and even then I sometimes look. Content is the important thing - a lot of interesting threads are started by posters generally considered to be shit.

The unfortunate thing with you Androme is that, of late anyway, you post nothing but crap threads. One or two crap threads might not get you negative rep. One or two crap threads per day most certainly will. It's like there's a breaking point in my head where I think 'Oh **** not you again' but I give you the benifit of the doubt and read the thread and am disappointed every time. :( I'm sure you used to be a far better poster than this. :((

[Stew]

I never look at who starts a thread, I simply log on, see which threads have new posts, open them all (<3 tabbed browsing) then read away, starting with the thread lowest down the page.

Shit, uninformative threads titles like "Guess What" or "Heh" or "Last Night" do have a tendency to piss me off though.

[onetwothree]

I preview the content.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sarina_Joy

I at least glance at every thread on here, apart from the ones tagged [football] and even then I sometimes look. Content is the important thing - a lot of interesting threads are started by posters generally considered to be shit.

Pretty much agree with this.

I don't really care who starts a thread since hopefully someone decent will take it off-topic on a lot of the shitter threads.

I do read individual posts differently based on who has written them though. If someone I consider to be stupid / shit says something relatively obscure then I'll often presume they're being stupid. If they're someone I know to be smart then I'll consider what they meant more closely. I don't think that's an unfair approach.

[demiGOD]

i just randomly read threads, don't really look at who started them or don't care how they're started - i just start reading

[JonnyBGood]

Personally I'd say number of posts and title are the most important things. I'll always read threads with interesting titles first, then threads with a large number of replies. I doubt there are that many threads in general I don't read. As for forming an opinion on each thread I don't think I've ever done that without reading at least the first twenty replies.

[roadrunner_0]

i read pretty much every thread as and when i have time, who made the thread generally just affects the priority in which i read them

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Sarina_Joy

I at least glance at every thread on here, apart from the ones tagged [football] and even then I sometimes look. Content is the important thing - a lot of interesting threads are started by posters generally considered to be shit.

I agree with this.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that a lot of the supposed "good" posters make quite pretentious, dull threads. I just preview the content of most and then look at it. Usually I just open every new thread in a tab, read a bit of it, and if it looks crap then I don't bother.

Simple rule of thumb is: don't make threads just for the sake of it.

[CrashTester]

As a general rule I try not to read anthing written by CrashTester or Yahwe - they bore me. If they ever colaborate on a thread, I swear I'd switch off the internet. But for me its content thats most important thing.