posted
I'm not saying there should necessarily be a rule. My point is simply that some consideration of time should be placed into a landmark post.
quote:Landmark: An event marking a unique or important historical change or one on which important developments depend.
Landmark posts are, generally, based off of a user's post-count. It seems the general consensus is to post a landmark at 1000 posts. I think that simply doing it at 1000 may be, in some cases, unnecessary.
I think the best time for a landmark is when someone one day looks at their username and realizes that they've been on hatrack for a lot longer than they originally anticipated (and I'm talking years here) and they have posted a lot more than they ever thought they'd post. Another good time for a landmark is a major change in someone's life (going off to college, getting married, relocating to another state/country- something honestly significant.)
These days, a post-count of over 1000 is fairly common. A lot of this is due to fluff threads where little or no investment is made by the individual poster. Is reaching 1000 posts really a landmark in these cases?
If someone posts once every week or so, then 500 or even 250 is a significant and unique experience for the person involved. Therefore, a landmark post would certainly not be a suprise.
[warning! stream-of-consciousness to follow] I think the reason I say this is that I don't believe myself to be ready for a landmark anytime soon. I don't think I've really contributed much to the hatrackian scheme of things. I may have been funny every now and then and I may have even participated in a serious thread every now and then, but I don't think that anything I'd have to say at this point in my life is significant and I can't see how anyone who has been around here for mere weeks could possibly have anything important to say. Maybe this is a selfish and stupid way of measuring the "worth" of someone's landmark, but I'm just trying to explain my mindset as I write this post.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That in itself seems like it could be the basis of a landmark post. I think one reason it's good to post a landmark at 1000 is that by then people are kind of wondering, "Now who is this person? What's their story?" So it's kinda like an introduction/background. Plus they're fun to read. If you're not ready there's nothing that says you have to post a landmark.
Posts: 981 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would generally hope that the opening post of a "landmark" thread is, itself, a landmark of sorts.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong - maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the best landmark threads are the ones that say the most about a particular poster. *shrugs* Or maybe I just don't care that much Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For my own posting, I feel much as you do. I don't begrudge other people their right to post a landmark whenever they want to, but if it's somebody I've never really encountered anywhere, there is a good chance I won't click on or post in their thread. And that's fine. Their landmark is for them and the people they have befriended. I like to read the landmarks to get more insight into the people I already know somewhat, to understand what makes them the way they are and to know them better.
I think 1,000 was a nice number, particularly for Papa Moose, because it used to take a while to hit 1,000. By the time you had hit 1,000, you had usually gotten to know a lot of people here and be known by a lot of people as well.
I am debating whether or not to post a second landmark at 5,000. If I do, I hope the "issues only" crowd won't hate me for it. But there are a lot of people who weren't here when I posted my first, and there is a lot to me that is not there. I didn't post at 2, 3, or 4 thousand, but now I am feeling once again that it might be appropriate.
So again, I think people should post whenever they feel like it--just don't feel bad if a lot of people don't post on it, or just post a .
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I originally wanted to post a landmark for some relatively high prime number. But I realized the post numbers don't stay the same that they were at the time of posting (does that make sense?)
Anyway, I don't think what other people do for landmarks takes anything away from what I do, either in a landmark or otherwise.
Unless your comments were pointed at me. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hardly, I have no idea who you are or how my posts would apply to you. Is this your typical attitude towards somewhat difficult subjects like the one I've picked to muse over? Is it automatically an insult if it may apply to you in some way? That's gotta be a fun way to go through life.
I'd read your 5000th landmark Icarus.
I almost did one at 1000 for this username. I started it, but quickly realized that I had nothing to say, so I decided against it. Also, I didn't have people climbing all over my back asking me to do one- which was kind of nice.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I understand why some people can't stand emoticons, they don't understand them.
Though thinking everyone is talking about you is a symptom of anxiety disorder, which I do have. :End public service announcement/pharmeceutical ad:
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now I understand why some people can't stand emoticons, they don't understand them.
I am well aware of what eye-rolling means.
quote:Unless your comments were pointed at me.
Look at your comment. I'm assuming, from your later post, that you meant this to indicate sarcasm, it doesn't. It indicates your contempt for someone who may refer to you in a post like mine.
Which of the two of us doesn't know how to use smileys?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Tom. I miss those days past of shocking long-distance phone bills, 300-baud modems that you strap the handset of your phone onto and people who really knew how to make their point known. No one knows how to communicate better than computer geeks!
On another note...
quote:ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) is the most common format for text files in computers and on the Internet.
Yeah, I miss those days of text files too. <sighs>
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think one reason it's good to post a landmark at 1000 is that by then people are kind of wondering, "Now who is this person? What's their story?" So it's kinda like an introduction/background.
I agree with that. I just enjoy reading a person's landmark post thread that has contributed posts that have more to say than " " or " " or "(((insert person here)))" or "takes last post" posts.
Not that I'm not guilty of doing these things, but I only do that maybe 1/100 or less posts.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, PC. Hence the land-markedness of the post. I agree that it should mean something to the person that is posting, instead of being just another excuse to use a bright, colorful smiley (not that I have much against bright, colorful smileys-I just don't feel like making excuses to use them).
Personally, it will probably be an enormous landmark for me should I ever reach 1,000. I am calculating that at this rate, it will probably take me another 4 years. Much will have changed in four years, I hope.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just enjoy reading a person's landmark post thread that has contributed posts that have more to say than "[smiley I refuse to have appear in one of my posts]" or "[same with this one]" or "(((insert person here)))" or "takes last post" posts.
Isn't that my point? Shouldn't a landmark mean more than 1000 posts? Shouldn't it mean that you've really gone somewhere and have really changed through that experience? Isn't that what the first landmarkers were trying to convey?
It seems that, from what you've quoted, you agree that a landmark thread is a "get to know you" thread. I think I disagree with this sentiment. I think that a landmark thread is a "You know me, I know you... now, let me open my heart to you" thread. You should really know someone by 1000 posts- it's a freaking lot of posts! However, some people seem to get there and still remain relatively anonymous.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It seems that, from what you've quoted, you agree that a landmark thread is a "get to know you" thread.
No, the quote actually said ONE reason why people do landmarks.... ect ect.
I never said that's the only reason, I just think that's why SOME people do them. I have 2000+ posts, I feel like I'm somewhat known around here. Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, the quote actually said ONE reason why people do landmarks
Okay, I understand what you're saying now. I still disagree with it. It may be a reason why someone may do it, but I don't know if it's a good reason.
If you've participated to a good and diverse degree, a good contingent of hatrack should know who you are, and using a landmark as a "get to know you" post would be redundant.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not saying there should necessarily be a rule.
We agree there.
The custom at Hatrack, as it was explained to me, is as follows: Some people post landmarks at 1000 and multiples of 1000, some people post at other arbitrary numbers (such as primes), some people post on a specific date. Some people do not post landmarks at all. Landmarks are so defined by the person posting them.
So you think 1000 posts is not sufficient reason to post a landmark? So don't post one then.
You think other people ought not be posting them after 1000 posts and a very short time period, during which they have not made themselves known to you?
Tough cookies. You don't get to make that decision. If you don't know who they are, and they are posting a landmark, feel free to ignore them.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Get Your Riot Gear: Something stirring in the air, a victory? A time-bomb ticking to explode, Something passive, something not. Billy clubs out, call the S.W.A.T. Rabid dogs without a leash, is this how you keep the peace? You want riots? Wear your riot gear. You want violence? Then shoot some tear gas in the air.
It is written on your badge, 'To serve and protect', it seemed you only served yourselves, protecting your own neck. Controlling with fear, menacing and threatening. You want my respect? You better start respecting me.
Go and get your riotgear, swing your girlie all around, we'll be dancing on the cinders, as the town is burning down. Swing her around, burn it all down.
Something smelled of power tripping, crowd control was rank. Tear gas everyone downtown, what you did really stank. Legislation, never made you judge and jury. Marshal law now, beat the kids down with no worries.
posted
I think my ultimate goal with this thread is to just give people something to think about next time they think they should post a landmark.
It's almost getting to the point where people must feel a landmark is expected of them at 1000 (or multiples thereof.) It shouldn't be expected of anyone. All of my musing works the other way too. We, as a hatrack community, shouldn't expect landmarks of people just because they get to 1000. We should expect it of them when they find they have something to say.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what a lot of it is is that there's a whole subset community of hatrackers, much more pronounced than ever before in the days when people would complain about cliques in hatrack. Most of the old time hatrackers aren't part of this subset, so they just see people who they barely know posting. However, to the people making these landmarks hatrack is an entirely different place, that consists of their subset, that knows them very well.
Does that make sense.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm guilty of this. I've posted a landmark at each and every 1000 that I've reached. My first one was a decent landmark I think (I followed Papa Moose's example and just talked about me) and my last one I liked because it was about my Grandfather. I don't even remember what 3000 was but 2000 was an explenation of smilies, not really a landmark; anyways, I do think I've overused the landmarks. However, if someone wants to write a landmark and you think that they really haven't done anything that calls for one, then it seems fair to just think of it as any other thread. If people have something they want to say and they post it in a landmark thread then it seems like at the very least you can just discus it as any other issue.
I have no idea what I'll do with 5000. I was thinking about just leaving it alone but 5000 seems like a very round number that calls out for a landmark. Which I guess is what you're saying I shouldn't base it on so maybe I wont do anything. Maybe I'll just follow Icky's example for 5000.
I think you're referring to the kind of people who spend a lot of time in one or two threads and don't show up elsewhere. I'm sure I'd be more inclined to read and appreciate their landmark threads if they didn't do this. I think I'd be happier if they gave more to the community than a thousand posts of nothing in a thread I don't read because it contains exactly that.
[edit to make clear who and what I am referring to]
The number thing is fine to me- if it's just a good way of timing when to post your landmark. I also see no problem posting a landmark at 5214 either. I just don't think it should be the only reason you do a landmark.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But they are part of a community, it just happens to be a subcommunity that most of the "old" hatrackers aren't part of.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess, then, if I were in their shoes, I'd post my landmark within that thread I spend so much of my time in.
It makes sense (at least, to me ) that my landmarks (if I am ever to make any) aren't posted on the main page of hatrack.com or in any other forum other than the landmark archive and BFFAC because it doesn't apply to anyone there. Why should the landmarks of people who only hang out in one thread show up on the main forum topic listing?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's like saying that the people who only post in serious threads should post their landmarks in those thread, or the people who only post in fluffy threads should post their landmark in one of them. It's really the same situation, and the people you're refering to do post in more than one or two threads, they have a whole genre of threads to themselves. The only difference between them and the fluffy/serious posters is that there has always been a huge amount of overlap between the fluffy and serious threads, while there's really very little overlap between the people you're complaining about and the rest of hatrack.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Hatrack -- or more specifically, this forum -- is a different place for each person. That's a good thing, IMO. I'm very glad there isn't some arbitrary list of requirements to be considered a full-fledged member.
So there are some threads that are analogous to a "kiddie table," if you will. When people who mostly post there venture out into the deeper waters of Hatrack, is it really necessary to chomp off their heads, sending them scurrying back whence they came? Really?
How about either nurturing them, in the hope that they may someday become what you consider "worthy" members of Hatrack? Or if you cannot/will not do that, simply ignore them?
As was pointed out, we're not on 300 baud modems. It costs you so little to let them feel welcome -- or at least not feel UNwelcome.
Is your convenience (and honestly, it's not like checking out the second page is SO hard to do) really worth more than other people's feelings?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Blackwolve kinda has the right of it. But its less that its "old" Jatraqueros who don't know this "subset" and more that the "subset" don't know the rest of the community. I think we are talking about the younguns who aren't really interested in anything except making friends, joking around and playing games in the game threads. *shrug*
Who cares? I always just look at the thread title and, if I don't recognise the name, I don't bother to read.
posted
Primal, do you realise that to some people, this forum is just a forum, and a landmark post is just a post?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Primal, do you realise that to some people, this forum is just a forum, and a landmark post is just a post?
Then why feel the need to point this out? If you think, and I'm assuming this is you, that this is just a forum, then why should you care what I think? After all, it's just a post and doesn't mean anything beyond that.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Because I've got this irrational compulsion to challenge people who spout shit.
quote:If you think, and I'm assuming this is you, that this is just a forum, then why should you care what I think?
I don't care what you think. I care what you say.
quote:After all, it's just a post and doesn't mean anything beyond that.
Certainly, for me it has no meaning beyond that. That does not mean it has no meaning.
My point is, some people take this more seriously than others. It's pretty ridiculous for you to suggest that there needs to be some sort of standard of meaningfulness achieved before someone ought to post a landmark thread. It's just a thread, man. It's someone saying, "Look, I've got N posts; isn't that cool? Let me tell you something else. . . ." If the person and the thread don't mean anything to you, so what? Odds are there are half a dozen other trheads on page one at that very moment that don't interest you.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
" or "(((insert person here)))" or "takes last post" posts.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
