Post Count equates to Credibility...

Sure, if you just look at raw numbers, it's next to meaningless. But here you also get to see other helpful stats, like how many times the poster has been thanked and has given thanks to others. I think both are a very good indication as to their "value" and credibility. Nothing is foolproof, obviously, but it all adds up.

John

Right back at ya, but I don't do that unless I really believe the post deserves it.

Nice post, but...

Does anything we do in marketing mean anything in Grand Scheme of things?

The simple fact that a lot of people do think post count has some modicum of meaning gives it meaning. Perception is reality.

Couldn't agree more. As long as I've been doing this, I should have thousands of posts by now.

But I struggle to post much here at all.

Why?

It's a standard I set for myself.

My take is this: if I'm going to make a post, my goal is to make 90% of them useful enough to earn a "thanks" from someone. Not because I need to feed my ego, but because I don't want to open my mouth unless I'm certain that I can post something that is useful to someone, or helped someone in some way.

I work hard to avoid "me too" or +1 types of responses, as they simply don't add anything to the discussion or take the thread forward in any way. And even when I do post a "me too" type of response (which this ultimately is), I try to ensure that I'm approaching it from a new angle, which might give others something additional to think about.

Some people are far better at this than I am. Tim Gorman and Rod Cortez for example, are two people whom I've trained myself to read every single thing they post - because they hold themselves to a very similar standard. When those two guys take the time to write something, it usually means they have something important to share with you or teach you.

Since I'm more comfortable in the background, I'm not able to do it with the same volume that they do. But make no mistake - neither of them are in the top percentages of frequent posters, but they've been around long enough, and helped enough people to make it clear that their carefully chosen words always carry weight.

Again, it's a standard I work hard to uphold within my own posts. It's frightening to imagine how much further we might have collectively advanced our marketing techniques if everyone held to a similar standard, and said more with less.

~Mike

Here, take a look at this. (Image used for future consistency.)


Now, "Zeus66" indicates that this person has some interest in Greek mythology, and fancies himself the father of the gods. The 66 has some significance, but is probably not indicative of Zeus and Zeus1 through Zeus65 also being on the forum. It is probably a consistent username that he uses on all forums he joins, which means - while it is not his real name - he wants to be recognised and expects to be known.

He's kept the default title for his user account, which means he doesn't feel some need to be witty at people. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) He's a War Room Member, which means he's contributed to the forum. His avatar is apparently his real picture, but he's wearing sunglasses, so he's probably a bit shy and insecure. (He either doesn't want you to see his eyes, or he's worried that he might not look cool enough without them.)

He's been here since July 2008. That's a year and a half; about 600 days. He lives NEAR Dallas, which means he's in a smaller town whose name you wouldn't recognise, but he wants you to have a good idea where it is. He's got 2,000 posts - a little over three a day. He's made 23 blog entries in his profile blog. He's thanked 570 people for their posts, so he's lavish with his praise. He's been thanked in 507 posts - almost as many as he's thanked himself - and an average of 2.4 times per post that gets thanked. He's also on Twitter, YouTube, and Skype.

At this point, I can read his blog, visit his Twitter feed, watch his YouTube channel, and even add him as a contact on Skype. It's not just post count that matters, it's everything.

But the only things Zeus didn't put in there himself are the join date and post counts. Everything else could be fake. So when you're evaluating credibility, those are the only things that come from a reliable source.