This doesn't account for the inverse case, where content can not be framed in a way that doesn't attract lamers. There are people who will take a crap in the middle of any thread having to do with Obama, for instance.
I'd argue that, to some extent, "lamer" is a relativistic term. What is a lamer? Someone who posts content that a preponderance of users in a community think is stupid, non-useful, or distracting. But said content is stupid, non-useful, or distracting with respect to the preferences of the majority of users in the community.
Using this logic, you could argue that a community with a lot of lamers is a community that hasn't properly attracted a target userbase, or has failed to maintain one. In this model, lamers are symptoms and not root causes. The cause is, as you suggest, a flawed content strategy.
Of course it's relative, that's what separates communities from "everybody." User flagging is how the community can evolve.
you could argue that a community with a lot of lamers is a community that hasn't properly attracted a target userbase
A person who sees most of a community as lamers is not a member of the "target userbase," and has no business speculating what the "target userbase" of that community should be or even whether they're doing it "properly" (h/t C&C). "If you look around and all you see are assholes, the asshole is you." Nothing wrong with this, that's why people form communities and subcultures. Not everything has to be for everyone.
It seems you're trying to work with a universal definition of "lamer," which doesn't exist. It's always in context. I'm a lamer when it comes to baseball and I'm not going to go into a bar and force people to respond to my endless questions about why bats aren't all the same size and "what is a home run, anyway?"
It seems you're trying to work with a universal definition of "lamer,"
Just the opposite, actually. Your point about being a lamer in context of something you don't understand or like was precisely my point. My point was that a community full of "lamers" is a community that has somehow attracted posters or commenters whose tastes, opinions, knowledge level, interest level, and/or posting intent do not mesh with those of the majority of the userbase. To the extent that these lamers -- as defined by their context -- exist, that's usually a function of a community's having lost focus (or never had proper focus to begin with). Because lamers are defined by context, the only way to eliminate lamer presence is to sharpen content or context focus around the set of users you want to keep.
I think we're agreeing more than we're disagreeing here. And if it doesn't sound that way, I'll concede that my post may not have been worded clearly enough.
