Spammers vs. Lurkers

[Kinspin]

Re: Spammers vs. Lurkers

I lurk a lot and post rarely because its always good to lurk moar.

[Thugzluv200]

Re: Spammers vs. Lurkers

I'm a lurker

[u84]

Re: Spammers vs. Lurkers

Moderate. I don't usually even enter a thread unless it catches my eye. If I then read it and find it dumb, if it's a question and someone already answered it or if it turns out to be something that would only make it look like spam if I posted, I may either leave or wait to see if I can contribute to it later. Otherwise, I lurk for a bit on an interesting thread for the chance to post/spam later, when more ideas and posts by other people are made.

[SpammyMcSquirrel]

Re: Spammers vs. Lurkers

Lurker, definitely.

[thehunter1117]

Re: Spammers vs. Lurkers

moderate

[speeddemon]

Re: Spammers vs. Lurkers

I started out on the spammer side, but then i got into an argument with an admin on a different forum, and ended up permabanned. So now I lurk.

[5.points]

Re: Spammers vs. Lurkers

A lurker.

[Relambrien]

Re: Spammers vs. Lurkers

Moderate. I don't post in everything I read, but a good bit of it.

Also, something that no one else has tackled that the OP has asked for, which is more detrimental to a forum: spammers or lurkers?

The obvious answer is "spammers." But not perhaps by the OP's definition of those who post in every thread they read, but rather, those who post in everything with very little to add to a conversation. I make the assumption here that a forum's quality is determined by the quality of the content posted by its members, which is defined by how well said content is thought-out, what thoughts it provokes, and what it contributes to a discussion.

Spammers who enter threads, leave a remark that doesn't influence the conversation at all, then leave, drastically decrease the quality of those threads. Discussion forums are just that--discussion forums. Their purpose is for people to share opinions, inform, and debate. Every forum here does at least one of those things, and every good thread in a forum does the same (but not every thread that does at least one of those things is good).

Compare a thread such as this one to something by coberst (for anyone who remembers him). This thread actively stimulates discussion via questions asked in the OP, and then the path of that discussion is determined by the posters. Whereas in coberst's threads, he posted short essays of things that leave no room to debate or discuss. The most content you could post in reply would be something like "...Okay...so what exactly do we talk about?"

Then for those of you who remember madmatt/britishbmx, his threads were threads that did inform, but were bad threads. Why? Because he offered no input of his own. He just copy-pasted news stories. What's the point of that? Sure, he informed us of stuff that happened somewhere. But he didn't give a starting point for any discussion, and didn't put any effort into his own posts. That's why he was disliked here.

People like madmatt and coberst would fall into the "spammer" category. And they definitely did more damage to these forums than anyone who lurked around until they knew how to act. TGB encourages lurking; it's the whole reason for the Panel. They want you to be able to create content that's worthwhile and in the spirit of the forum, which is why if you're a bad poster, they Gban you and force you to lurk for a month.

In short, lurking = good. Spamming = bad.