Spring spheres are the new Easter eggs

[Bloodsoul]

Yeah, the board's not stupid! It's, um.. intellectually challenged?

[HYHYBT]

After waiting most of a day to avoid derailing further progress on the main topic, and seeing none...

Besides, I don't think there's anything wrong with requiring someone to put some content of their own in the post they make.

I don't either. But character count is, at the very best, a horribly inadequate means of defining content, especially when there are limitations on which characters count.

Now, some of this may not quite fit because I'm not going to experiment to see exactly what counts and what does not, and am instead going on memory... but, for example:

*Smileys. Using one is, essentially, content. (At the very least, for some in the extended set.) Or, if it's not, then saying the same thing in plain text is also not content, yet the filter allows that. Some of them at least stand alone and logically need no elaboration. For example, or . After that last one, there's no *point* in also saying "you're beating a dead horse" other than to get around the character limit. It's said already.

*Pictures. Much like smileys... but sometimes a picture says all that need be said. For example, if someone were to ask "What does the Mona Lisa look like?" then a post containing nothing but the address of a JPG of the Mona Lisa, enclosed in IMG tags, would logically be a perfectly good response. Saying "It looks like this:" first adds no content, only characters.

*Quotes. There are quite a lot of ways quotes might be used that wouldn't require any further elaboration. For instance, if someone says something that's just the opposite of what they said in another thread, the juxtaposition of the two is, itself, saying quite a lot without additional comment. Alternately, quoting someone who said exactly what you're trying to express, only far better than you'd ever manage to say it, is also content: saying "Soandso said it best" first doesn't really add anything meaningful. Or, in this case, it was a matter of a comment reminding me of a favorite joke from Animaniacs. But saying "you reminded me of this joke" would have been redundant; it's evident from the quote itself what it is, and from my posting it along with the comment that provoked it the reason for doing so. And the source, had I included it, would have gone in the opening tag anyway and therefore still not count. Which leads to another problem with the system...

The limit, as implemented, can actually lead to *worse* posts. For example, instead of adding an off-hand complaint which I never expected to be taken so seriously, I *could* have left off the quote tags. That would have fixed it... but surely it's better to use quote tags when quoting? Or, in the Mona Lisa example (again, if IMG tags are in the same boat) it could be gotten around by putting in the image's address without the tags. But the effect would be that the questioner would have to follow the link to get their answer, rather than just seeing it right there.

Besides, even in all-text posts, sometimes all you need to say is "thanks." And, short as it is, that says a lot. Meanwhile, useless posts can get quite long indeed

[Ree]

As I see it, there is possibly merit to some of the opinions you have expressed and the examples you have used.

I suspect your post, itself, was designed to underscore your point that quantity does not guarantee quality.

The thing is, this a site designed to encourage debate.
As Raps said, there is nothing wrong with requiring content that falls within expected criteria in order to maintain a board that is conducive to debate.

Smilies, in fact are a fairly new addition because we had originally wanted people to "use their words" to back up their thoughts and we didn't find them to be a priority.
Now that Mike, due to popular request, has brought over all of the CS smilies, if someone was to make a post containing a smilie only, that would still not really qualify as valid content for the purposes of furthering debate.

As far as I know, this board also has a keystroke count requirement in the same way that CS does. Again, this is to ensure content to further debate and prevent post padding.

The post that started this was one where you had 2 quotes only.
Because you couldn't post something containing nothing but quotes, you added a line saying "(this line added because the stupid board says the post is too short without it)"

For example, instead of adding an off-hand complaint which I never expected to be taken so seriously, I *could* have left off the quote tags. That would have fixed it... but surely it's better to use quote tags when quoting?

This is true, however, the board software cannot pick and choose and analyze what has been posted, so it has to apply a broad brush and set limits to all posts.
That may mean you have to add a short line to back up a quote, image, link or smilie, even if you feel the requirement is silly because your post speaks for itself as is. The next person's post may not stand on its own and requires that short line.

That's how it goes on fratching.