Ensure that your post is constructive and includes originality

Read-me 📃

This topic is meant to address how to properly respond to certain poor-quality posts. I have considered constructive feedback from the replies, and revised this thread accordingly.

For now, I feel like this thread can be resourced positively, and has relevance as-of-now.

I’ve seen a certain type of post “technique” on the Developer Forum that lacks contribution, and adds minimal content into the discussion.

This is unnecessary dialogue - allow me to demonstrate:

Post 1 by anonymous_robloxplayer:

I personally feel like your UI’s color scheme is odd, and does not compliment one another. I recommend using more saturated accent colors rather than pastel, so it is more complimentary.
Good job, nonetheless! :smile:
6 :heart:

Post 2 by anonymous_robloxplayer2:

Great work! Please follow what @anonymous_robloxplayer suggested! :star:
0 :heart:

  • Post 1 is contributive, helpful and meaningful.
  • Post 2 does not add any creative/resourceful insight to the discussion.

Please do not be the Post 2 person. If Post 1 said exactly what you wanted to say, don’t bother to type Post 2 up.

What if I wanted to add new and resourceful insight?

  1. Let’s say you agree with the content of Post 1, but the owner beat you to it. If you want to add your own insight, do not add what you had in mind alternatively.
    To demonstrate:

Post 3 by anonymous_roloxplayer2

Hi! You can also try using pastel colors in your UI! Good luck! :four_leaf_clover:
What anonymous_robloxplayer2 is actually thinking:
In my head, I agree with Post 1 more, but I wanted to add my own insight. This is not convenient, as he is contradicting his original thought.

Don’t contribute at all?

  • If everyone said what you wanted to say, you are not obliged to reply.
  • Even miniature advice like “add a logo to the UI” can help, if no one stated this out.
  • Just make sure what you are saying can help the original poster benefit, and can provide some resourceful insight.

If you come across a post like this, please flag the post. More context is provided in the solution.


I may be completely wrong, and this reply is purely based on my personal observations. Don’t take what I say here to be facts, just speculation.

I’m loving that there are more contributions being made everywhere, and also that people are working together to solve problems much faster with the numbers of users who have got through the automatic approval stage. The change is good, but I feel this problem has become more apparent since the announcement of automation of the new member to member promotion system.

It almost seems as though people believe that whatever the content of their post, they are “contributing” to it just by replying. This is definitely not the case, as seen in the great example you’ve addressed here. I believe some people are posting just to boost their stats, in the hope that it’ll give them a better chance of earning promotion. This definitely isn’t what the automation was meant to encourage, but I fear that it might’ve enticed some people to do so.

I would also love to see less of these kind of replies, they’re not constructive in any way and can end up clutting a thread when multiple users follow the crowd and do the same. I believe a similar thing has been mentioned before, where people reply to new features just saying things such as “great update” instead of stating use cases or other useful feedback.

TL;DR Since automation there’s lots more contribution, but this seems like a side effect. Possibly due to users doing it to boost possibility of gaining full membership, others see it and do the same. Needs to stop.


Essentially you’re saying, if someone said something you wanted to say, then don’t write a post.

I can understand where you’re coming from when it comes to new users doing so for the sake of a promotion and actually contributing to the topic at hand more so than to not be flagged.

But in all honesty if I take my time to write a post, and it’s pretty lengthy. I don’t care who typed the same thing I typed it’s being submitted.


I’m glad you asked. Because I took my time to write a post. Though if I do end up saying something and someone beats me to the punch, I simply tag them and give them credit, usually shortening the part that clashes with theirs, and continue on with my other thoughts.

Great Developers think alike. And we’re all bound to eventually end up repeating each other in some way shape or form. Whether this is unintentionally subtle, or intentionally similar. Having two Top Contributors or Two Featured Game Developer’s reply to the same post with the same answer gives reinforced feedback to the point a person was trying to make.

I believe that this does benefit the original poster.

1 Like

If you come across this kind of post, flag it.

To provide a bit more context on why, refer to the DevFourm FAQ, which says

Rather than posting “+1” or “Agreed”, use the Like button. Rather than taking an existing topic in a radically different direction, use Reply as a Linked Topic.

Even if you don’t read the FAQ, the official rules says

This isn’t a new thing but does still occur, please refer this post to learn more about some of the previous chatter on this topic.


I would like to apologise for bumping this thread but I have found an increasing amount of non-contributive/spammy posts since September. I will be honest, I’ve made my few posts like post 2 in the past but surely we all have? Anyway, I’m not trying to say all new members are bad – we have a lot of good ones but I do think that stricter moderation should be in place for these kind of posts.

Here’s what I mean (none of these posts have been edited to be dramatised or exaggerated, I’ve edited them so the original posters of these replies will be anonymous – some of them are too short to be edited because they are two/three word posts and/or are too basic):

Post 1: Not bad… do the excellent work.

Post 1 does not contribute at all to the original topic, instead it is spam.

Post 2: Looks good!

Post 2 does not contribute at all, instead it is spam. The poster should of smashed clicked the like button instead of posting.

Post 3: Look’s really good.

Refer to post 2.

Post 4: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand:

This one was from a community champion :flushed: , instead the like button could of been used.

Post 5: What a selling pitch.

Refer above.

Post 6: use free models, they are good for noobs

This was a scripting conversation – the OP wanted to learn what he/she/they should use for learning how to code in Lua.

Remember all of those posts were real.

I think you get the gist now; searching just 30chars (or similar) is a rabbit hole of these posts. I do flag posts regularly (within reason) but I feel like something needs to be done about this.

While I know I should flag, it should be disciplined into knowing that they should use the like button rather than making these replies.


In my perspective, this forum has substantially transferred from an informal, casual chat to an artificial hierarchy. The race to Full Member is real—although I’m generally disinterested in the role, my surroundings aren’t. You can investigate more about what I’m saying here:

Consequently, Post 4 may have been posted in 2017 or prior (?) Similarly to a casual dialogue, this forum used to (and this is my personal, invaluable opinion) be exclusive, therefor insisting for casual dialogue.

Filter text:
:ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand: