WTF is up with >1000

[Spechel EDD]

[ QUOTE ]
Mike, LOL.

I also think now that this is out in the open it's fairly immature and self-serving of EDD to carry on about this "feature" being disabled, saying about how important it is to his 2+2 reading experience - when the real issue is that he seems upset that his thread designed to get page hits because another poster was hammering the site with refreshes (almost certainly with his knowledge but whatever) got neutered by the 1000+ thing. Either that or it's a really massive coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

uh since when and where have I said that I cared how many views that thread had? I've even told mods that have asked me that I wouldnt care if that thread was deleted to stop the scripter from hitting it. All I want is that threads have legitimate numbers so I can estimate on how long/good/etc it has been.

I couldnt care less about my postcount as many people on these forums that I speak with know.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
All I want is that threads have legitimate numbers so I can estimate on how long/good/etc it has been.

I couldnt care less about my postcount as many people on these forums that I speak with know.

[/ QUOTE ]
Misdirection.....DENIED!!!!

[Artsemis]

Edd, you're my favorite poster.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All I want is that threads have legitimate numbers so I can estimate on how long/good/etc it has been.

I couldnt care less about my postcount as many people on these forums that I speak with know.

[/ QUOTE ]
Misdirection.....DENIED!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah really. That post count thing he wrote has nothing to do with anything.

EDD, just to make sure I wasn't seeing something I cruised back through your posts in that thread. When you write above:

"uh since when and where have I said that I cared how many views that thread had?"

Nearly every post in that thread (around 12-15) mentioned the number of views. From the first post which was "viewcounts +++" to your last, which was "last i remember it was close to 109k" in response to it being set to >1000, it's pretty obvious that you cared about the number of views it had. You even bitched at Dids about changing the subject title because it would negatively impact the views. So even if you didn't know about the secret scripter (unlikely since the view count was impossible without something funny going on) you certainly cared. Like this, your second-to-last post in the thread about the >1000 thing:

"yeah horrible horrible forums change. it is so easy to fix someone from scripting an auto-reload setup on a page it isnt even funny anymore."

Perhaps rather than enabling this behavior you could help prevent it? Seems like you know how.

[tuq]

BTW I don't know if you wrote what you wrote here because you thought the thread was deleted, giving you a chance to re-write history. But it's not, it's in the mod forum, thus your points were easily refuted by what you'd already written. It's not that I care that much about this, it's that your contradictions are so blatant I can't help but point them out.

[Conspire]

Tuq, can you give me a link to the hate forum?











[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuq, can you give me a link to the hate forum?











[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/po...mp;Board=quiet

[valenzuela]

I can live with 1000+

[Spechel EDD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All I want is that threads have legitimate numbers so I can estimate on how long/good/etc it has been.

I couldnt care less about my postcount as many people on these forums that I speak with know.

[/ QUOTE ]
Misdirection.....DENIED!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah really. That post count thing he wrote has nothing to do with anything.

EDD, just to make sure I wasn't seeing something I cruised back through your posts in that thread. When you write above:

"uh since when and where have I said that I cared how many views that thread had?"

Nearly every post in that thread (around 12-15) mentioned the number of views. From the first post which was "viewcounts +++" to your last, which was "last i remember it was close to 109k" in response to it being set to >1000, it's pretty obvious that you cared about the number of views it had. You even bitched at Dids about changing the subject title because it would negatively impact the views. So even if you didn't know about the secret scripter (unlikely since the view count was impossible without something funny going on) you certainly cared. Like this, your second-to-last post in the thread about the >1000 thing:

"yeah horrible horrible forums change. it is so easy to fix someone from scripting an auto-reload setup on a page it isnt even funny anymore."

Perhaps rather than enabling this behavior you could help prevent it? Seems like you know how.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was laughing at how many thread views that it was getting. that thread was nuked but i remember saying that it was around 109k, which i actually think i said was 107k because someone asked before me in that thread how many views it got before it was changed.

the whole point of that thread was a joke and it was originally titled "fluffpop nudes" because i saw it as being funnier with that instead of me there. i cant believe you are even trying to make this an issue here.

[Ryan Beal]

Ok. Chuck and I have been discussing this, and we've decided to return the view counts back to the way they were for now. Anyone found intentionally trying to inflate the number or encouraging others to do so will be banned permanently without further warning.