Mandatory posting

[pbrown355]

The new rule about posting to maintain access to the site brings forth solitary and irritating (to some it would seem) posts.
Why not require a review instead. It would (maybe) increase the variety of posts, and certainly the volume. Just a thought, but it's amazing what goes through your mind when you're stuck in traffic

[wolves lad]

I didn’t know about a new rule?

[Wolverhampton1990]

My only concern then would be if people who haven't seen a WG start posting fake reviews in order to gain access. I think I'd rather scroll through a few more tedious posts than have an influx of reviews I don't trust.

[watsey]

My only concern then would be if people who haven't seen a WG start posting fake reviews in order to gain access. I think I'd rather scroll through a few more tedious posts than have an influx of reviews I don't trust.

Agreed.
I think there have been a few contrived reviews posted already.

[OldAdmin]

It's been probably a month since this was dropped.

[minge]

It's been probably a month since this was dropped.

That’s a shame , it seemed a good idea to give lurkers a kick up the arse.

[DHunters]

Don’t you need to keep posting a certain amount to keep access to the ‘Off Topic’ area?

[Chorley]

Don’t you need to keep posting a certain amount to keep access to the ‘Off Topic’ area?

Not too sure.  I rarely post in Off topic, so I wouldn't be bothered either way.

[OldAdmin]

Don’t you need to keep posting a certain amount to keep access to the ‘Off Topic’ area?

Yes some sections (e.g. Off-Topic) require a post in past 90/180/365 days in the section, but I thought the OP meant the restriction on not being able to view links and images unless a post has been made in past 60 days.

[minge]

Yes some sections (e.g. Off-Topic) require a post in past 90/180/365 days in the section, but I thought the OP meant the restriction on not being able to view links and images unless a post has been made in past 60 days.

A minimum of one post in 60 days seems more than generous to be given wider access.

[Terabine]

The rule is reasonable, I think, but doesn't necessarily increase the number of reviews. I'd be happy to review but I haven't punted since I joined the site. That's because I'm now retired and have less funds and, oddly, less opportunity (I used to travel round the West Mids).Guess that makes me a lurker or a leech but the urge is still there. I wish I'd discovered this site years ago! I will most certainly post review when I take the plunge again.

[pbrown355]

Terabine,
I don't think anyone views a non reviewer as a leech unless they do nothing but ask for information without doing anything to provide any. If I wasn't punting I would quite probably still take part in discussions and read reviews.

[Terabine]

Thanks pb. That's reassuring.

[Dick N Tits]

I haven't ridden a motorbike in a while since a serious crash and I haven't punted in a while since finding a woman who fulfils me in every way. I come on here for the same buzz that I get from my motorbike websites... I read what's new, what people are riding and what the performances are like :-)
If my circumstances change in the future then I'll offer reviews to both sites, but until then I'll have to lurk :-(

[pbrown355]

What I possibly meant by my previous post is that there may be a difference between lurking and leeching?
I like the comparison with motor bike websites. I have my own other "specialist subject" where I look but am not much use as a contributor.

[Dick N Tits]

 

[Swapmeister]

It's a pointless rule if is still being applied. I've seen a few posts where the 'contribution' after years of nothing is to randomly chuck in 'post op?'. Or to share "experiences" of the WG being discussed where it was obvious that they were merely repeating gossip picked up from other people's posts.

[Kev40ish]

It's a pointless rule if is still being applied. I've seen a few posts where the 'contribution' after years of nothing is to randomly chuck in 'post op?'. Or to share "experiences" of the WG being discussed where it was obvious that they were merely repeating gossip picked up from other people's posts.

Did you read the thread????

[Swapmeister]

Yes.