Paying more attention to the poster, than the post.

[starshine]

I was just wondering if anyone (else) does this? Either to an extreme, or on a smaller scale?

Like, there are obviously times you will take into consideration who is posting, like determining whether something is a joke or not, or something.

But I've seen two topics, one was closed, and the other was a pretty well received, and went on for a few pages... but they were about the exact same thing. One person was a newer member, the other was a VIP, so I'm lead to believe that the only reason one was well received was because it was a VIP posting it.

There are times where I will read a message because I know who posted it, or I like that person.... or two posts are basically the same, and I will pay more attention to the person I like betters post than the other.

So yeah, does anyone else find themselves doing this? And do you think it's a bad/good thing?

 

[Takashi]

There are times that I will go to a thead and just skim thought and try to find out of a certian person posted.

 

[PetPuppyAlex]

Well, I think its just because Newbies have just started out here and they don't really have the foundation of trust with the community as regulars and VIPs do. But you have a point, some people post about the same thing and its a serious topic but only the one from the higher ranked person is taken seriously. But think of it this way. If a 5 year old is trying to get a story across, then, after, a 20 year old was trying to get the same story across, initially, I don't think most people would lean toward the five year old. That's sort of the way I see it.

 

[TheFoxxehAssassin]

I do pay attention to who posted the thread. If it's a newbie, I'll pay less attention than if it's a Regular, VIP, or Mod. (Unless it's in Greetings Forum)

Of course, if it's a problem, I won't care who's posting it. If it's silly, I won't care, but I might get a better laugh if it's from a reg/VIP.

--The Silent Assassin--

 

[Wegs]

Well, I think its just because Newbies have just started out here and they don't really have the foundation of trust with the community as regulars and VIPs do. But you have a point, some people post about the same thing and its a serious topic but only the one from the higher ranked person is taken seriously. But think of it this way. If a 5 year old is trying to get a story across, then, after, a 20 year old was trying to get the same story across, initially, I don't think most people would lean toward the five year old. That's sort of the way I see it.

I think AlexAwsome pretty much hit the nail on the head.

 

[Fire2box]

I assume your talking about location type topics or where someone wants to meet anyone.

Anyways you are right and I of course do that. I have no idea what new people came here for but a person that has posted for like 3 months or more I can see how people will trust them more.

I also tend to view people as liberal or conservative such as Fallen and whatever name Candyman is going by now. That also affects how I look at a person's post. I also assume the same thing happens to me all the time.

 

[starshine]

I assume your talking about location type topics or where someone wants to meet anyone.

Anyways you are right and I of course do that. I have no idea what new people came here for but a person that has posted for like 3 months or more I can see how people will trust them more.

I also tend to view people as liberal or conservative such as Fallen and whatever name Candyman is going by now. That also affects how I look at a person's post. I also assume the same thing happens to me all the time.

Actually, the post I had in mind was a post about a new product. One was closed, and the other went on for pages. I was actually a bit confused, since they were, in essence, the same post... but one got closed.

 

[Charlie]

Huh, was the newbie's post creepy, or otherwise close-worthy?


I think I'm more likely to properly read the post of somebody I like, than somebody I don't know very well. I rarely skip posts when I'm reading a thread, but I'll pay some people more attention.

I don't think it's a bad thing, it's just natural. It's only bad if newbies are ignored, or never taken seriously.

 

[starshine]

Huh, was the newbie's post creepy, or otherwise close-worthy?


I think I'm more likely to properly read the post of somebody I like, than somebody I don't know very well. I rarely skip posts when I'm reading a thread, but I'll pay some people more attention.

I don't think it's a bad thing, it's just natural. It's only bad if newbies are ignored, or never taken seriously.

Not at all. One post was marked "spam" and deleted, the other went on for pages. If you want specific links I have them, but that's not really relevant... just a case of paying attention to the poster more than the post in a bad way.

 

[h3g3l]

Spoiler

I was just wondering if anyone (else) does this? Either to an extreme, or on a smaller scale?

Like, there are obviously times you will take into consideration who is posting, like determining whether something is a joke or not, or something.

But I've seen two topics, one was closed, and the other was a pretty well received, and went on for a few pages... but they were about the exact same thing. One person was a newer member, the other was a VIP, so I'm lead to believe that the only reason one was well received was because it was a VIP posting it.

There are times where I will read a message because I know who posted it, or I like that person.... or two posts are basically the same, and I will pay more attention to the person I like betters post than the other.

So yeah, does anyone else find themselves doing this? And do you think it's a bad/good thing?

I presented a system for fully anonymous research collaboration a few years ago at an academic conference. The goal was to kick science into developing a bit faster (increase epsilon) and to lower the "bar of entry" for newcomers to the field with high-quality research, knowledge, or ideas[1].

The aspect of it that came under fire was the very human fact of our nature: when we are gathering information, we consider two things:

1. The apparent validity of the information;
2. The apparent source of the information.

And the second item heavily influences the first.

I myself can certainly appreciate that high-quality information, knowledge, or thinking can come from an odd source. However, I have also taken great pains and expense to give myself the leisure time necessary to read for content rather than attribution.

And even with that, if all else is equal, I will be more convinced by a friend than an unknown entity, as I trust my friend to not pull my leg.

[1] This is, of course, a direct answer to what Kuhn tells us about the progression of science.

 

[Raccoon]

I don't see how one can entirely ignore the identity of the poster, as much as I like to think I am objective. Newbies simultaneously enjoy the benefit of doubt (from me) but are also widely treated with suspicion. We trust them (having no evidence to the contrary) as long as they are plausible; we tend, sometimes unfairly, to mock or decry implausible stories. We may be lenient towards newbies for poor writing standards - or the breaking of other site-specific standards, like the use of memes, where veterans should know better. Where a newbie has made few posts we have no basis to assume they are being sarcastic, sardonic, or other than literal and transparent in their meaning; we take them at their word. How their word is taken can differ from how they intend - this can be a function of where they were brought up, where standards differ from ours; previous examples include sites with a sexual focus and 4chan where behavior that is acceptable and encouraged is different from our norms.

Credibility is earned, usually over time, as a function of one's character, the reliability of one's information, the validity of one's opinions (and how well they are argued,) and in a few cases, one's agenda. Credibility may come with one's off-site reputation, as with the case of Bittergrey.

 

[avery]

to me, the identity of the person who posted is the first thing i look at, and the most important piece of information i use in interpreting the post. a post can have two completely different meanings depending on who posted it: think about abby's april fool's day post, for example. to anyone who knows abby, and has heard her views about drug use, premarital sex, and contraception that post was a complete mindfuck. if some random newbie had posted it, no one would have even blinked.

the main reason i still come to this site is because i like the friends i've made here, and their quirky unique personalities. so the person who creates a post is almost as important to me as the content of what they say.

 

[Serendiapity]

I think if a newbie posted something along the lines of a typical Priest or Pojo post, it might warrant a couple comments for being either offensive or egotistical.

 

[Boogeyman]

I think if a newbie posted something along the lines of a typical Priest or Pojo post, it might warrant a couple comments for being either offensive or egotistical.

Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey.