[mothered]

This creates spam, and people going on every thread that has hidden content saying "Thanks for this share!".

A minimum char requirement when replying to a given post can be Implemented , thereby Increase the likely hood of a quality response.

I've come across a few boards where the hide tags worked efficiently, but the majority simply generated LQ posts.

That's exactly what I am afraid of. Still, people can easily just create some stupid ass message like "Thanks for this amazing share man! I will use it well." or some stupid crap like that.

There's always a way to circumvent anything In existence.

I'm not saying the hide tags won't work, nor am I suggesting they will (In It's entirety). In my views, I believe forethought plays a major role In determining It's success.

[phyrrus9]

I do agree with you. One thing though, I absolutely am 100% against this: You have to reply to the thread to unlock the content inside the [hide][/hide] or you have to pay NSP to unlock the content. This creates spam, and people going on every thread that has hidden content saying "Thanks for this share!". I feel if this was implemented, it would need to be if you want to see what is inside the hide tag, you must be a registered member with your email verified.

Edit:
P.S. @Slacker why am I not on your best friend list? lol, jk.

This creates spam, and people going on every thread that has hidden content saying "Thanks for this share!".

A minimum char requirement when replying to a given post can be Implemented , thereby Increase the likely hood of a quality response.

I've come across a few boards where the hide tags worked efficiently, but the majority simply generated LQ posts.

I also agree here. Tags that require you to reply to the specific post in order to view it are counterintuitive. I believe the suggestion was that they require n posts across the whole board in order to open hide tags. Character limits are mildly useful, but rarely help. You get people posting this

nice! ,.......................................limit

[Slacker]

I'm sure there is something even if not hide tags that could help prevent the issues started above the tags were the first thing that came to mind

[reGEN]

Perhaps something that isn't post-based? Like time spent on forums or time spent reading, or contributions made with threads or reputation/like count. Maybe some algorithm that combines all of these factors together to assess worthiness?

[phyrrus9]

Perhaps something that isn't post-based? Like time spent on forums or time spent reading, or contributions made with threads or reputation/like count. Maybe some algorithm that combines all of these factors together to assess worthiness?

I'd even be fine with it having no requirements other than that you are a registered (and activated) user.

On a side note, it would be neat to have something like

Code:

[hide=15] text that requires 15 posts to view [/hide]

[mothered]

Character limits are mildly useful, but rarely help. You get people posting this
nice! ,.......................................limit

Agree, that's where the Implementation can be counterproductive.

In such cases, (for example) It can be Implemented/configured whereby no 5 chars of the same type are allowed In succession within the very same post. That said, LQ posting can never be eliminated entirely.
EDIT: Quote tags fixed.

[phyrrus9]

Character limits are mildly useful, but rarely help. You get people posting this
nice! ,.......................................limit

Agree, that's where the Implementation can be counterproductive.

In such cases, (for example) It can be Implemented/configured whereby no 5 chars of the same type are allowed In succession within the very same post. That said, LQ posting can never be eliminated entirely.
EDIT: Quote tags fixed.

I think post-specific things aren't going to do any good, but making it as simple as hide tags function in a "you must be a registered user with an activated account to view this content" would be sufficiently helpful to some of us who write high value threads.

[Blink]

I'd say hide tags are fine for hiding from users with < 15 posts or something, so you don't have accounts that read every thread but never post. (@ddhammer I'm looking at you)

The dumb kind of hide tags are the kind that make users post on that exact thread, that just generates spam.

I agree with @phyrrus9 on the [hide=15][/hide] thing, that would be neat.

[phyrrus9]

I'd say hide tags are fine for hiding from users with < 15 posts or something, so you don't have accounts that read every thread but never post. (@ddhammer I'm looking at you)

The dumb kind of hide tags are the kind that make users post on that exact thread, that just generates spam.

I agree with @phyrrus9 on the [hide=15][/hide] thing, that would be neat.

and @Torwaldson as well. He actually fits the next edge case, where he has >15 posts (I think), but is a serious lurker (if not a bot). That's why having it so the poster can specify a min post in their hide tag could be a cool feature, though this would probably require a custom plugin (which I'm happy to produce)

[mothered]

That's why having it so the poster can specify a min post in their hide tag could be a cool feature

Good Idea.

In this case and given that not all threads are alike, I believe there should already be a minimum post requirement and the OP can Increase It according to the nature of the content posted. This will also help avoid any misjudgement (by the OP), whereby the minimum post In the hide tags Is set too low.