How do you judge people in forums?

[brujo]

How do you form impressions of people in forums?

In real life, we form impressions of people by the way they dress, the way they talk, their friends, etc. I wonder if we get an idea of a 'first impression' when we are on the Internet? Any ideas?

 

[dancing_princess]

I guess you form impressions based on what they write, how they write it, etc. Pretty much based on the way they express themselves.

 

[fascination]

while you might think I'm all about frequency, the way I surf is by looking for the people who i most enjoy or respect on here...for me, it is all about content

 

[mamboqueen]

while you might think I'm all about frequency, the way I surf is by looking for the people who i most enjoy or respect on here...for me, it is all about content

ditto...although I hesitate to use the word "judge".

 

[pygmalion]

I judge people by the tone of their posts, so I guess that's writing style.

Yeah. I definitely get to "know" people's online personas over time. I try very hard not to make "first impressions" but to start putting together a picture of a personality over time. Meaning one post is not enough for me to decide who I think you are. It usually takes me a couple weeks, at least, and several posts. But I definitely form a picture of the person (not a physical picture) in my mind and deal with them accordingly.

I could give examples, of course. But I won't, to protect the innocent. :wink:

 

[mamboqueen]

or the not so innocent!

 

[pygmalion]

or the not so innocent!

Yeah. That too. :wink: :lol:

 

[saludas]

Judge is a harsh word, but when I look at someone who is posting, I certainly decide their credibility level...

Low level of credibility:
The people who say "I've never done it but..."; the people who opine but are out of their league or field of vision: "I think there are too many fast movements in Open level, and I am a bronze student"; the people who see their dance category as sacred: "xxx is a way of life, not a dance form"...

High level of credibility:
People who are actually in it or doing it; people whose perspective is reality based and not fantasy based; people who demonstrate a willingness to be honest or accurate even at the expense of popularity.

Lurkers/occaisional posters are not as interesting to me as I think that the reason I look to this forum is for the interaction. As I would at a coffee klatch or gathering, the folks who do not participate are always treated cordially, but if they do not contribute, are considered expendable.

 

[Swingolder]

Judge is a harsh word, but when I look at someone who is posting, I certainly decide their credibility level...

Lurkers/occaisional posters are not as interesting to me as I think that the reason I look to this forum is for the interaction. As I would at a coffee klatch or gathering, the folks who do not participate are always treated cordially, but if they do not contribute, are considered expendable.

Oh, that is kind of harsh - quiet people being described as "expendable"!

 

[redhead]

ahem... avatars, sometimes?
not always, but if they are very unusual...

 

[pygmalion]

The word judge does have a negative connotation in a lot of people's minds. But it really only means to make a decision.

I think we all (or at least most of us) make decisions about other people on a daily basis. That's just human nature, right?

 

[pygmalion]

are not as interesting to me as I think that the reason I look to this forum is for the interaction. As I would at a coffee klatch or gathering, the folks who do not participate are always treated cordially, but if they do not contribute, are considered expendable.

I can see why you might view occasional lurkers as not really a part of the group. But I also know of a few lurkers we have as DF members who post only very rarely, but bring an enormous amount of value when they do. So no. They don't necessarily contribute to the overall feeling of DF. But I think that they contribute quite a lot to the community, in their own quiet way.

 

[dTas]

i totally base my views on content. clarity and consiceness of thought and a well laid out post.

even if i don't agree with the material i respect the person who puts together a good argument or is efficient at making their point.

 

[pygmalion]

Wow. I'm the only person who voted writing style. But I stand by my vote. Words are only part of the picture, IMO. (That's why I use so many emoticons, btw. )

What a person says is important, yes. But I think that how they say it can make a huge difference. *shrug* Just my way of looking at things.

Edit: Another writing style person. Whew! I don't have to stand alone. :wink: :lol:

 

[Sagitta]

I judge people by the tone of their posts, so I guess that's writing style.

Yeah. I definitely get to "know" people's online personas over time. I try very hard not to make "first impressions" but to start putting together a picture of a personality over time. Meaning one post is not enough for me to decide who I think you are. It usually takes me a couple weeks, at least, and several posts. But I definitely form a picture of the person (not a physical picture) in my mind and deal with them accordingly.

I could give examples, of course. But I won't, to protect the innocent. :wink:

Now, I'm curious...