Isn't a message board supposed to be a place where people can have their say and make their contributions in a free atmosphere under reasonable rules of conduct?
How does member rankings fit into this?
If Member A posts 500 messages that mostly ask a lot of questions and Member B posts 90 messages that mostly answer those questions correctly, how does Member A "rank" over Member B?
Similarly, Post Counts should be eliminated as well. If someone is concerned that a member's post might not have "standing" (?), we can just create a new category for Post Counts: Under 25 and Over 25 posts.
I would think the clarity and composition of a member's post would count for far more than Post Count in anyone's evaluation of a member's answers, anyway.
Kelticwizard's Suggestions For DIY Audio's New Years Resolutions:
Resolution Number One: Eliminate Member Rankings.
Resolution Number Two: Eliminate Post Counts
Agree? Disagree? How do you feel about it?
How does member rankings fit into this?
If Member A posts 500 messages that mostly ask a lot of questions and Member B posts 90 messages that mostly answer those questions correctly, how does Member A "rank" over Member B?
Similarly, Post Counts should be eliminated as well. If someone is concerned that a member's post might not have "standing" (?), we can just create a new category for Post Counts: Under 25 and Over 25 posts.
I would think the clarity and composition of a member's post would count for far more than Post Count in anyone's evaluation of a member's answers, anyway.
Kelticwizard's Suggestions For DIY Audio's New Years Resolutions:
Resolution Number One: Eliminate Member Rankings.
Resolution Number Two: Eliminate Post Counts
Agree? Disagree? How do you feel about it?
Hi,
As a newcomer, I have wondered about this.
At first, I assumed that kelticwizard (for example) being deemed an "Elder", was older and wiser than some of the other posters, but this does not seem to be necessarily so! (no offence intended, kelticwizard)
I don't know how the 'titles' could be judged fairly, though, as it would be a nightmare for anyone to have to 'assess' the value and content of any individual's postings.
Also, who would judge the 'Judges'?
Regards,
As a newcomer, I have wondered about this.
At first, I assumed that kelticwizard (for example) being deemed an "Elder", was older and wiser than some of the other posters, but this does not seem to be necessarily so! (no offence intended, kelticwizard)
I don't know how the 'titles' could be judged fairly, though, as it would be a nightmare for anyone to have to 'assess' the value and content of any individual's postings.
Also, who would judge the 'Judges'?
Regards,
Peter,
These are both on the list of cosmetic changes that were mentioned in the Friday the 13th announcement. More important things are in the queue right now so the timing is unknown.
the over 25/under 25 is an interesting twist.
It will be interesting to hear member comments.
dave
(in official capacity)
These are both on the list of cosmetic changes that were mentioned in the Friday the 13th announcement. More important things are in the queue right now so the timing is unknown.
the over 25/under 25 is an interesting twist.
It will be interesting to hear member comments.
dave
(in official capacity)
Wiz,kelticwizard said:
I'm with you. I think the rankings and post counts are crap. There are people here like dave (planet 10) or Frank who have a lot of info in their posts, and contribute far more than they take. However, in comparison, there are others (like one who celebrated his own 1k posts) that consistently post dreck.
I second both resolutions.
Ranking of Members
Hi All,
As I said earlier I feel the quality of the posts is more important to me than the quantity. But who may be the judge of that?. Recently we have seen some pointless postings just to crank up the number. I am in favor of "resolution" 1 & 2.😎
Hi All,
As I said earlier I feel the quality of the posts is more important to me than the quantity. But who may be the judge of that?. Recently we have seen some pointless postings just to crank up the number. I am in favor of "resolution" 1 & 2.😎
Bobken said:
Bobken:
By the above quote, I am led to believe that perhaps you thought I was proposing eliminating number of posts as the method of ranking members, and was suggesting that some method of rank based on quality of posts be substituted.
If that is the case, I apologize for not making myself clear.
I am proposing elimination of all member "titles" completely. No Novices, no Elders, no Enlighteneds.
I propose the "Over 25 Posts" rank because some say that they distrust the posts of people who have not been members of the board for awhile. They feel that a member should have a "body of work", so to speak, before they take them seriously.
I really do not see the need for that, but the "Over 25 Posts" category is proposed to allay those fears nonetheless.
my opinion: away with this member ranking based on post counting as fast as possible. There are at the moment at least two threads in the board that makes post counting an absolute nonsense.
How about we choose our own. I want mine to be 'demi-god' or 'stud-muffin' or 'fahn cahn'.kelticwizard said:
I don't see the need for a count at all. A person's post should be taken on their merit, nothing else.
Cheers
Brett said:
Details yet to be worked out, but the proposal on the table is to allow a self-choosen title as recognition of a financial contribution to the maintenance of the forum.
dave
(in official capacity)
BTW: post count will still be accessible by going to look in the statistics. Eventually more kinds of rankings (the keystroke count is very interesting) will be added.
In the end the worth of a member is unique to every other member -- even the court jester, our very own minstrel has his place.
dave
kelticwizard said:
Hi kelticwizard,
No need for an apology, except perhaps from me.
I did carefully read and understand your post, but chose to agree with you in a rather 'oblique' manner, as I am new to the Forum and didn't wish to be seen to be overly critical about what has been long-established.
I tried to point out that the existing system can be confusing to a newcomer, and went on to say that any alternative method of determining a members 'status' would be nigh on impossible.
The inevitable conclusion from these two comments should be clear, I think, but I hoped my attempt at diplomacy might be appreciated!
I am OK on the 25 posts bit, anyway, as I see I have already notched up 40 (now!) posts since joining on Xmas day!
Regards,
I agree, get rid of the post count.. (before halojoy gets to 1000)
I have been accused of posting just to up my count... well, I did for a while to see how hard it would by to catch up to halojoy and beat him to 1000, but I found it was rather impossible.. 😛 so I gave up.. lol.. yeah, I don't mind wether I have a post count or not...
I have been accused of posting just to up my count... well, I did for a while to see how hard it would by to catch up to halojoy and beat him to 1000, but I found it was rather impossible.. 😛 so I gave up.. lol.. yeah, I don't mind wether I have a post count or not...
Speaking as someone who has just posted his 100th post today, I agree that the current title system is a useless indicator of what is worth reading on this forum, however, DON'T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER!
I use the number of posts to identify the members who have been active on the forum and to get acquainted with them by reading their posts. This is the best way to find out what kind of member they are and how reliable their information is likely to be. In this way you will clearly separate the sycophants, jokers and pests from the people that have informative, inspiring or innovative posts. The only thing I could wish for is way to ignore useless posts (and posters) without having to read them after I have identified them.
I use the number of posts to identify the members who have been active on the forum and to get acquainted with them by reading their posts. This is the best way to find out what kind of member they are and how reliable their information is likely to be. In this way you will clearly separate the sycophants, jokers and pests from the people that have informative, inspiring or innovative posts. The only thing I could wish for is way to ignore useless posts (and posters) without having to read them after I have identified them.
yes and i don´t wont wo be email notified that someone added a post to a thread if he is on my ignore list!
dave,planet10 said:
be cautious with how you implimnt this. Over at Audioasylum, when you click on a person's 'profile' it says whether they are a contributor or not. At AA there is also a tendency amongst a number of members to dis any comment by someone they don't agree with, by saying they're not a contibutor, as if the content of a particular post is more valuable because of the size of the donation made. It creates a whole us/them scenario and I find it distasteful. Whilst it may not be a problem now, as the place grows, it will surface more.
I have no problem contributing to the running costs of the forum (better than ads/sponsors), but will not do so if it's on display.
Fine As It Is.......
I say just leave as it is.
Status and number of posts do confer an idea of length of membership to the forum and level of participation.
To be sure the status "Enlightened" is a misnomer in the case of some present here (Halojoy comes immediately to mind - not being offensive here - just calling a spade a spade), but for the most part the title is appropriate, and reading posts will reveal the author to be contributing real information or crap, and respected or not accordingly.
If the setup be changed so that members own description be added, then the number of posts ought to be displayed also.
Kelticwizaed, I feel that your suggestion is to make change for changes sake, and not beneficial.
Eric.
I say just leave as it is.
Status and number of posts do confer an idea of length of membership to the forum and level of participation.
To be sure the status "Enlightened" is a misnomer in the case of some present here (Halojoy comes immediately to mind - not being offensive here - just calling a spade a spade), but for the most part the title is appropriate, and reading posts will reveal the author to be contributing real information or crap, and respected or not accordingly.
If the setup be changed so that members own description be added, then the number of posts ought to be displayed also.
Kelticwizaed, I feel that your suggestion is to make change for changes sake, and not beneficial.
Eric.
The labeling of members has bothered me right from the beginning. I left the forum for an extended period because of it and while I was drawn back by some interesting TL discussions I still do not typically post very often (this is number 37 since I joined in Feb of 2002).
I have recently seen a few people hit some significant milestones in very short time periods. Some deserve the recognition while others just seem to "talk" a lot about anything and everything. I don't pay attention to the number of posts for an individual. I pay more attention to the quality of the particular post I am reading.
So in my opinion (not that it really matters or anybody cares) I think if a counter is desired it should remain in the membership list, the labels should be dropped completely, and retain the date of membership in each post so that a long standing member is recognizable from a new member (not that it is an indication of anything but a quick search into the pror posts can help one judge the quality of the advice being given). The only labeling exception would be for moderators.
My two cents,
Martin
Quarter Wavelength Loudspeaker Design
www.quarter-wave.com
I have recently seen a few people hit some significant milestones in very short time periods. Some deserve the recognition while others just seem to "talk" a lot about anything and everything. I don't pay attention to the number of posts for an individual. I pay more attention to the quality of the particular post I am reading.
So in my opinion (not that it really matters or anybody cares) I think if a counter is desired it should remain in the membership list, the labels should be dropped completely, and retain the date of membership in each post so that a long standing member is recognizable from a new member (not that it is an indication of anything but a quick search into the pror posts can help one judge the quality of the advice being given). The only labeling exception would be for moderators.
My two cents,
Martin
Quarter Wavelength Loudspeaker Design
www.quarter-wave.com
Now that after 2.5 years I reach the 'demi-enlightened' status you want to pull the rug from under my feet? 😀
The statistics are kind of fun although I looked into them maybe 2 months ago for the first time. Apparently, I am one of the the oldest member of the forum with one of the lowest post/days of membership ratios, people like Jean-Paul that has been in the forum for 3 months will soon surpass me. most of the first few founding members are long gone, one of the reason I am still around is that I don't care enough about the politics but more about the content, someone maybe totally wrong one time and completely on the ball the next time, there is always something to be learned. I have no use for things like the ignore list, counters, statuses etc etc. On the other hand they don't bother me either.
The statistics are kind of fun although I looked into them maybe 2 months ago for the first time. Apparently, I am one of the the oldest member of the forum with one of the lowest post/days of membership ratios, people like Jean-Paul that has been in the forum for 3 months will soon surpass me. most of the first few founding members are long gone, one of the reason I am still around is that I don't care enough about the politics but more about the content, someone maybe totally wrong one time and completely on the ball the next time, there is always something to be learned. I have no use for things like the ignore list, counters, statuses etc etc. On the other hand they don't bother me either.
COUNTERS.
Hi,
Absolutely.
I think with all the changes going on lately some people try to change everything.
To me at least the status of a person as an Acolyte or Elder is meaningless if that person puts little effort as to the content of his/her posts.
There are many people around here that put more importance to their status as to their content.
That is a pity for them since they're likely to be seen as timewasters and if and when they have something meaningful to contribute the damage is done anyway and they'll not be taken seriously.
So,I suggest we tackle more serious problems such as the survival of the forum first and then we can bicker about details.
The idea forwarded by Brett as to not make financial contributors public is a fair suggestion since I find it discriminating.
If we all had to contribute a given summ of money to be able to survive as a community I would find that a more democratic way.
In the meantime I hope the people behind the forum can find a solution we can all live with.
Having said that may I suggest we all do what we can to post in the most meaningful,helpful way?
Cheers,😉
Hi,
Absolutely.
I think with all the changes going on lately some people try to change everything.
To me at least the status of a person as an Acolyte or Elder is meaningless if that person puts little effort as to the content of his/her posts.
There are many people around here that put more importance to their status as to their content.
That is a pity for them since they're likely to be seen as timewasters and if and when they have something meaningful to contribute the damage is done anyway and they'll not be taken seriously.
So,I suggest we tackle more serious problems such as the survival of the forum first and then we can bicker about details.
The idea forwarded by Brett as to not make financial contributors public is a fair suggestion since I find it discriminating.
If we all had to contribute a given summ of money to be able to survive as a community I would find that a more democratic way.
In the meantime I hope the people behind the forum can find a solution we can all live with.
Having said that may I suggest we all do what we can to post in the most meaningful,helpful way?
Cheers,😉
members rank themselves
IMO the existing titeling of members should be removed (exept for Moderators).
Due to the way it is since now the ranking is not meaningful at all.
Not only this but particular newcomers could be seriously misleaded by this.
It is not senseful to link the plain number of post with a title.
Everybody who wants to know a little more about another member can take a quick look at his/her profile where the number of posts is displayed anyway.
Though in my thought just a minor detail, without ranking the signal to noise ratio would improve significantly here as the concerning would rather stay mute instead of posting rubbish.
If at all, the more meaningful (and democratic) ranking system would be when members could rank themselves.
A kind of feedback system like ebay - but of course less extensive (no text, just counters).
The participant members of a thread can be (no obligation)allowed to rank each other one time (in one thread) for instance in terms of :
technical (competence)
helpful (in providing useful links ore other information)
funny
Each positive rank counts up a point each negative subtract a point in the corresponding category (categories and counters displayed on the left under user name instead of previous title).
I´m aware that this (as any kind of ranking) could be misused but I`m sure that people are mature enough to use this in the very most part in a responsible and appropiate manner (ebay proofs this) and that the result would be much more meaningful than the title system as it exists at the moment.
Some more quick thoughts:
For longer threads (every xx number of posts) more than one vote could be allowed.
Newcomers might only be allowed to vote from up to xx (positive) posts.
To spot notoriously troublemakers with such a system (only) the numbers of left positives and negatives could be stored in their profile (not to whom they gave it).
This is just a basic concept and could be much more refined and better thought out.
I have no idea whether this technically is feasible and how much work this is so please bear with me if therefore this is a silly suggestion.
IMO the existing titeling of members should be removed (exept for Moderators).
Due to the way it is since now the ranking is not meaningful at all.
Not only this but particular newcomers could be seriously misleaded by this.
It is not senseful to link the plain number of post with a title.
Everybody who wants to know a little more about another member can take a quick look at his/her profile where the number of posts is displayed anyway.
Though in my thought just a minor detail, without ranking the signal to noise ratio would improve significantly here as the concerning would rather stay mute instead of posting rubbish.
If at all, the more meaningful (and democratic) ranking system would be when members could rank themselves.
A kind of feedback system like ebay - but of course less extensive (no text, just counters).
The participant members of a thread can be (no obligation)allowed to rank each other one time (in one thread) for instance in terms of :
technical (competence)
helpful (in providing useful links ore other information)
funny
Each positive rank counts up a point each negative subtract a point in the corresponding category (categories and counters displayed on the left under user name instead of previous title).
I´m aware that this (as any kind of ranking) could be misused but I`m sure that people are mature enough to use this in the very most part in a responsible and appropiate manner (ebay proofs this) and that the result would be much more meaningful than the title system as it exists at the moment.
Some more quick thoughts:
For longer threads (every xx number of posts) more than one vote could be allowed.
Newcomers might only be allowed to vote from up to xx (positive) posts.
To spot notoriously troublemakers with such a system (only) the numbers of left positives and negatives could be stored in their profile (not to whom they gave it).
This is just a basic concept and could be much more refined and better thought out.
I have no idea whether this technically is feasible and how much work this is so please bear with me if therefore this is a silly suggestion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.