Originally posted by Phlabibit"Reason for STG's Success"... with the emphasis on the first word in this thread's title, "Reason".
Would you call the STG a "success"? That's the topic here. Regardless if you visit it or not, now another thread pops up saying it is good, when only a small number of posters keep it 'sticky'.
Well?
.....................................................
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundthere's a guy on a forum quite different from this...
Three or four users playing keepy up with a thread does not count as success.
on a website inna galaxy, far, far away...
he, too, insists that the main metric for determining a thread's worth is basicly how may post ther are...
donk... ( # )=( excellence )
quality of thought never enters the mind of this man...
only a number...
very interesting...
perhaps it's a virus???
can it be caught only on dsl??? not dialup???
rookie
(edited to remove unwanted smileyface) 🙄
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundGood point, Huck, and insightful as always. "Success" is both a subjective and nebulous word. Let's suppose somebody's 'my latest music recording' thread enjoyed a long run of, say, 400 days on the RHP General Forum with only a handful of members posting to it regularly... would 'sustained interest' be a more nearly accurate rationale to explain its longevity?
Three or four users playing keepy up with a thread does not count as success.
..........................................................
Originally posted by rookie54"donk... ( # )=( excellence )"
there's a guy on a forum quite different from this...
on a website inna galaxy, far, far away...
he, too, insists that the main metric for determining a thread's worth is basicly how may post ther are...
donk... ( # )=( excellence )
quality of thought never enters the mind of this man...
only a number...
very interesting...
perhaps it's a vir ...[text shortened]... be caught only on dsl??? not dialup???
rookie
(edited to remove unwanted smileyface) 🙄
An equally interesting question might focus on the essential nature and volume mix of ( # ),
i.e., negative reaction to 'quality of thought', which is often unsettling, or appreciation of it.
............................................................
