Is there a limit as to how many threads a owner should create on a daily basis

Some owners love to post new topics on a daily basis to keep their forums alive. So my question to you, do you think there's a limit to as to how many topics a forum or staff member should create on their community?

Personally, I feel there isn't any limit as long as your topics are of quality and can generate replies from other people.

So, where do you stand on this?

 

I want to say "no, absolutely not."

Realistically, though, I don't think it's a good idea for a forum owner to create 100 new threads every day when no one is responding, though, so technically there's a limit somewhere. I'm not sure where that line would be drawn.

 

I agree. You need to get replies to your threads first before creating new threads. I typically just create new threads whenever I think my community needs some new topics to discuss.

 

I generally just make threads as ideas come to me or if announcements need to be made. I do see the negatives of looking at a forum and seeing all threads are started by the name person, especially if it’s from the admin or other staff. I’m very thankful for the users who start threads on my forums; I try to give special attention if it’s a good thread by promoting it on my networks and replying once a few other replies are made.
That’s another topic of discussion. What do you think of admins or staff always being the first to reply on threads?

 

I would never want any of my forums to revolve around me, so I always put my efforts first into figuring out how to get other people to start new threads, and reply to other people. I'd rather be one of the people who creates threads and one of the people who replies, than to be THE one who creates threads and always the first to reply.

 

I don't mind if they're the first to reply.

What I *do* mind is when they always reply with all possible answers to a question in that first post. I hate joining a forum, seeing the admin always first, and always with long posts/articles as responses. Yay for them being knowledgeable and all, but it means there's no real discussion....there's nothing that can be added....and there's nothing left for anyone else to say except maybe "I agree." constantly. No good.

 

I believe it depends on how large/active a forum is, and if those threads started by the owner are worth reading or not. If, for instance, a site is active enough and has new members creating new threads daily, then an admin can post many threads without anyone thinking "this guy is always the only one starting new threads".

 

It all depends on the quality of the post

 

It depends. If there are enough posting members on the forum to ensure that all topics would get a reply then however many you can do is good.

But, if the forum is not that active and the new thread pool is drying up then you should limit it so that you can start new discussions daily for people to reply to but spread them out so there is always new content.

 

If a thread is made by an owner and is very on-topic, don't you think that'll be pretty beneficial to the community? Some owners just make topics for the heck of it while not providing much substance in the thread itself. I feel if you spend a lot of time writing the topic out and going into more detail, then more replies will probably flow freely. Anyone can come up with a few one sentence-topics, but going in-depth on the thread works the best because it gives users more to read. Always remember to ask questions in a thread as well so that can generate replies. You have to lure the posters in with a new topic or two, or three.

 

They will be beneficial, but if the admin is the only one who's constantly posting thread after thread, it can get very annoying and it can make it look like he's the only one in that forum. Not many people want to be in a forum where the only active user is the owner.

Owners that post threads that really have no meaning or purpose rather than increasing the global post count are even worse.

Quoting Liz Lemon, "that's a dealbreaker, ladies!"