HQ Posts

[BaraaKhalaf92]

Now seriously, what's your definition of HQ and LQ posts?

I mean, forums are always about opinions, no one is right and no one is wrong, it's just a matter of discussion...

Someone may say "hey Cena is the best ever",and someone else may say "Cena is a failure" , both have their own opinions and you can't say that one's post is a HQ or LQ..

How?
How do you judge that that particular poster has HQ posts?

 

[seabs]

It needs to add significantly to the discussion. That's it, you need to be able to debate from it, opinions are cool but you gotta back them up with rational thinking.

 

[Crayo]

If it's on topic and contributes to the discussion, then it's a HQ post. You can improve your quality by improving grammar and length of the post, but as long as it's on-topic and contributes to the discussion you're fine.

 

[BaraaKhalaf92]

It needs to add significantly to the discussion. That's it, you need to be able to debate from it, opinions are cool but you gotta back them up with rational thinking.

I get what you mean, but still 2 posters may argue for example about who is better DB or Punk...

And they both back their opinions right and they both think they are right, so are they both considered as HQ posters in such a case?

 

[CM Punk]

Length and Quality pretty much.

 

[Leo C]

I get what you mean, but still 2 posters may argue for example about who is better DB or Punk...

And they both back their opinions right and they both think they are right, so are they both considered as HQ posters in such a case?

Yes.

Plus, the difference between a HQ post and a LQ post on the same subject is noticeable. Let's say someone wants to say that they consider Cena to be the best superstar in the WWE.

HQ: Well, I believe Cena is the best superstar in the WWE, he's an excellent mic worker when given serious content to work with, charismatic, very underrated in the ring, as he can wrestle great matches when they let him and when he's with the correct opponent. Not only that, but he's also their main draw and money maker, a very valuable asset for the company currently.

LQ: Cena iz da best u can't see me

It's a matter of opinion, yes, it may be wrong or right depending on the prson who says it, but you can always be HQ.

 

[seabs]

Re: RE: HQ Posts

I get what you mean, but still 2 posters may argue for example about who is better DB or Punk...

And they both back their opinions right and they both think they are right, so are they both considered as HQ posters in such a case?

Yep, it's not what you say but how you say it.

LQ : LOL CMPUNK SUCK BRO, BRY IS AWESOME

HQ : Well imo CM Punk has shown a better versatility in his mic work, especially when a heel where as Bryan seemed very one dimensional and struggled to gain a response. However Bryan is a better technical wrestler who rarely botches (a strong flaw of Punk's imo) although Punk's psychology makes him more enjoyable to watch from that regard. Since I enjoy technical wrestling Daniel Bryan is the better of the two for me.

 

[BaraaKhalaf92]

If it's on topic and contributes to the discussion, then it's a HQ post. You can improve your quality by improving grammar and length of the post, but as long as it's on-topic and contributes to the discussion you're fine.

So if someone has an opinion that is not popular among the other posters, that doesn't make his posts LQ right?

While spamming, off topic comments and insulting other posters are considered LQ posts?

 

[seabs]

Re: RE: HQ Posts

So if someone has an opinion that is not popular among the other posters, that doesn't make his posts LQ right?

While spamming, off topic comments and insulting other posters are considered LQ posts?

Yep

 

[BaraaKhalaf92]

Yep, it's not what you say but how you say it.

LQ : LOL CMPUNK SUCK BRO, BRY IS AWESOME

HQ : Well imo CM Punk has shown a better versatility in his mic work, especially when a heel where as Bryan seemed very one dimensional and struggled to gain a response. However Bryan is a better technical wrestler who rarely botches (a strong flaw of Punk's imo) although Punk's psychology makes him more enjoyable to watch from that regard. Since I enjoy technical wrestling Daniel Bryan is the better of the two for me.

Thankx man, I get it now...

And BTW I didn't see Punk botch before :

 

[Crayo]

So if someone has an opinion that is not popular among the other posters, that doesn't make his posts LQ right?

While spamming, off topic comments and insulting other posters are considered LQ posts?

Exactly. Unpopular opinions are bound to occur, but if you have displayed them with quality then it creates good discussion.

 

[Leo C]

Guess seabs was quicker than me there. Well, anyway.

Punk does botch though.

 

[seabs]

I'm the king of unpopular opinions I think, I dislike Henry, Defend Sheamus, Cena and Cara amongst other things.

 

[BaraaKhalaf92]

Yes.

Plus, the difference between a HQ post and a LQ post on the same subject is noticeable. Let's say someone wants to say that they consider Cena to be the best superstar in the WWE.

HQ: Well, I believe Cena is the best superstar in the WWE, he's an excellent mic worker when given serious content to work with, charismatic, very underrated in the ring, as he can wrestle great matches when they let him and when he's with the correct opponent. Not only that, but he's also their main draw and money maker, a very valuable asset for the company currently.

LQ: Cena iz da best u can't see me

It's a matter of opinion, yes, it may be wrong or right depending on the prson who says it, but you can always be HQ.

Thankx man tunga:

 

[BaraaKhalaf92]

I'm the king of unpopular opinions I think, I dislike Henry, Defend Sheamus, Cena and Cara amongst other things.

:bury::bury: