Grataku:
If you re-read Bob's first post in this thread, you will realize that both you and he are on the same side on this issue.
When other members posted suggestions for rankings, Bob came out with an outlandish list of "suggestions" for ranking, including such things as time in the Sin Bin, etc. It clearly was intended as a joke.
When you quoted his list in your post, you made it seem as if you thought he was entirely serious about that list. You seemed to be saying that Bob actually held the very ideas that he was trying to satirize. Hence, his objection.
Now that we have all that straightened out, might we return to the issue both you and Bob agree on-that rankings and titles should be eliminated?
If you re-read Bob's first post in this thread, you will realize that both you and he are on the same side on this issue.
When other members posted suggestions for rankings, Bob came out with an outlandish list of "suggestions" for ranking, including such things as time in the Sin Bin, etc. It clearly was intended as a joke.
When you quoted his list in your post, you made it seem as if you thought he was entirely serious about that list. You seemed to be saying that Bob actually held the very ideas that he was trying to satirize. Hence, his objection.
Now that we have all that straightened out, might we return to the issue both you and Bob agree on-that rankings and titles should be eliminated?
Cocolino raised the issue of ranking individual posts.
I have seen boards that used that system. There was a check mark for "Valuable" and "Not Valuable" beneath each post.
The idea is that if a person wants to let another member know that he considers his post especially well written or insightful, he could let him know that way.
In that particular forum, which is a political forum, it did not work that well. Everybody rated everyone on their side of the political fence "Valuable" and the people on the other side "Not Valuable".
It might work better here, in a forum that is more informational than one that advocates certain ideas.
So I would not stringently object.
Still, I think that the best thing is for every post to stand by itself. In life, we take people on the basis of how they present themselves, how well they communicate the things that matter to them, etc. Why not have a posting board be the same?
I have seen boards that used that system. There was a check mark for "Valuable" and "Not Valuable" beneath each post.
The idea is that if a person wants to let another member know that he considers his post especially well written or insightful, he could let him know that way.
In that particular forum, which is a political forum, it did not work that well. Everybody rated everyone on their side of the political fence "Valuable" and the people on the other side "Not Valuable".
It might work better here, in a forum that is more informational than one that advocates certain ideas.
So I would not stringently object.
Still, I think that the best thing is for every post to stand by itself. In life, we take people on the basis of how they present themselves, how well they communicate the things that matter to them, etc. Why not have a posting board be the same?
Hi Kelticwizard,
thank you that you bothered to explain it in such a good way.
grataku, referring to your last post: I didn't want to make the impression of being
now let's forget about it, OK??
thank you that you bothered to explain it in such a good way.
grataku, referring to your last post: I didn't want to make the impression of being
😉 🙂
now let's forget about it, OK??
kelticwizard:
Yes, I was just about to point that grataku apparently meant me with the "idoitic idea" as I saw Your last post.
Grataku did not critize Bob for sharing my idea but for his exaggerated fun postings (nothing against fun but I can follow this opinion to some extend).
Well everybody is free to make his point. Grataku made his point.... let`s say.. VERY clear. I`m usually a bit less obvious - but that`s only a matter of taste finally (BTW: I do NOT mean good or bad taste) . As I´m not so "touchy" it doesn`t bother me.
And, I have already granted myself that it might be a silly idea 🙂(altough I`m not yet fully convinced that it`s so idiotic actually).
After all (as has been said before several times) this is not really such an important thing but as Dave (planet10) asked about to hear some opinions I said mine.
It was just an idea and I did not know if this has already been done elsewhere and wether it could work in practise or not.
Again, a short version of my opinion: change this ranking system (and it already is one) to something better or leave it away entirely.
Ok,
I'll concede that I am a pain in the behind, that I like to get a raise out of people, and that I'll never be made a moderator. On the bright side you'll always know where I stand.
On the particular issue of ratings I consider the current way in which it's done pretty good. People that have over 1000 posts are clearly fanatics (in a good way) and are very knowledgeable and such status should be recognized, respected, and feared.
I think that the original idea of the cataloging people was meant to be fun, that is the original spirit of the creator and I think it should be left untouched.
I'll concede that I am a pain in the behind, that I like to get a raise out of people, and that I'll never be made a moderator. On the bright side you'll always know where I stand.
On the particular issue of ratings I consider the current way in which it's done pretty good. People that have over 1000 posts are clearly fanatics (in a good way) and are very knowledgeable and such status should be recognized, respected, and feared.
I think that the original idea of the cataloging people was meant to be fun, that is the original spirit of the creator and I think it should be left untouched.
oaalwaays on the briih....hiight side of li../cut
cut... enough fun posting...😀seriously!: that`s not the worst......actually that`s...... pretty okay🙂(IMO)
Keep the suggestions coming, but you will note that there are now only 4 classes of titles and none are related to number of posts.
diyAudio Member
diyAudio Moderator
Jason
Nelson
dave
diyAudio Member
diyAudio Moderator
Jason
Nelson
dave
This is ok.
I would prefer moderators to be only members if they do a normal posting, and only moderators if they moderate.
I would prefer moderators to be only members if they do a normal posting, and only moderators if they moderate.
YOU'LL NOTICE SOON ENOUGH...
Hi,
Well,seems to me we really started something...
It just strikes me (just when I crossed the 2K post boundary by the way) that all of us are members...no more no less.
Frankly I'm not a status person...but what struck me was the fact that when I saw a new member struggle to find his way around I could recognize him as such and give a gentle pointer on how we work.
This often creates some bonding and fidelity to the forum...after all it's the members that make it work.
Of course,having "Elder' or "Enlightened" on the left hand corner helped the newbies too.
Or so I would hope.
Often they would turn to us in faith and confidence for help... via private e-mail.
Extra work for us and when possible I suggested a post/thread on the forum in their best intersest.
I don't mind as long as I can manage and quite often friendships grow from which the forum benefits as well.
Surely they'll have a harder time to make up their minds on whom to turn to now.
Different birds,different feathers as they say...that's how nature works...that's how society works.
I don't think most elders mind this "status" affair too much but I do hope we don't loose sight of our amazing count of new members either.
Reading between the lines of Dave's (Planet10) invitation to keep reactions comming this may just as well be a test case but as far I'm concerned we had a good thing going in the first place.
Cheers and comments please,😉
Hi,
Well,seems to me we really started something...
It just strikes me (just when I crossed the 2K post boundary by the way) that all of us are members...no more no less.
Frankly I'm not a status person...but what struck me was the fact that when I saw a new member struggle to find his way around I could recognize him as such and give a gentle pointer on how we work.
This often creates some bonding and fidelity to the forum...after all it's the members that make it work.
Of course,having "Elder' or "Enlightened" on the left hand corner helped the newbies too.
Or so I would hope.
Often they would turn to us in faith and confidence for help... via private e-mail.
Extra work for us and when possible I suggested a post/thread on the forum in their best intersest.
I don't mind as long as I can manage and quite often friendships grow from which the forum benefits as well.
Surely they'll have a harder time to make up their minds on whom to turn to now.
Different birds,different feathers as they say...that's how nature works...that's how society works.
I don't think most elders mind this "status" affair too much but I do hope we don't loose sight of our amazing count of new members either.
Reading between the lines of Dave's (Planet10) invitation to keep reactions comming this may just as well be a test case but as far I'm concerned we had a good thing going in the first place.
Cheers and comments please,😉
This is not a test, it is a sign of greater changes to come. We are working on a system that is more representative of a users contribution to the board.
This is not possible without making major changes to the system. We are however working on a system to more clearly differentiate between a moderators posts made in their official capacity and their posts as a member.
This is not possible without making major changes to the system. We are however working on a system to more clearly differentiate between a moderators posts made in their official capacity and their posts as a member.
Frank,
If you look at the membership date that should tell you something about how long a poster has been around. Not a rock solid indicator but maybe a hint.
Ahhhhh shoot, post number 38 on my way to the magic 1000 post. I guess I don't get fussed over with smiley faces. Big disappointment.
If you look at the membership date that should tell you something about how long a poster has been around. Not a rock solid indicator but maybe a hint.
Ahhhhh shoot, post number 38 on my way to the magic 1000 post. I guess I don't get fussed over with smiley faces. Big disappointment.
TO FUSSY.
Hi Martin,
Looking at the left hand side window,what do you have for useful info?
Not much,I reckon.
I really don't want to open a number of windows to sort out members.
Some have posted a lot (meaningful or not) in a short notice of time whilst others have few posts and have longer membership.
So,what does that tell me and more importantly newbies?
Nothing I think?
Cheers,😉
Hi Martin,
Looking at the left hand side window,what do you have for useful info?
Not much,I reckon.
I really don't want to open a number of windows to sort out members.
Some have posted a lot (meaningful or not) in a short notice of time whilst others have few posts and have longer membership.
So,what does that tell me and more importantly newbies?
Nothing I think?
Cheers,😉
If It Aint Broke, Then Don't Fix It.....
I fully agree with what Frank says.
In the very least, the left pane should contain the members' joining date and number of posts instead of having to go to individual profiles.
As Frank states, the status line confers an identity to all posters, and this is usefull for guaging the knowlwdge level of a poster, and likewise newbies can identify and ask questions of more experienced members.
Dave, I think this latest change is a retrograde one, and I very much feel that it is knee-jerk reaction to some not so well thought out suggestions.
I think the old system worked just fine, so please put it back.
Also, a while ago suggestions regarding forum rules were taken.
In amongst these was the suggestion that all fields in the profile page be required ones, and it was stated that this would be incorporated, but so far this has not happened.
This would help in identifying members levels and outlooks.
Eric.
I fully agree with what Frank says.
In the very least, the left pane should contain the members' joining date and number of posts instead of having to go to individual profiles.
As Frank states, the status line confers an identity to all posters, and this is usefull for guaging the knowlwdge level of a poster, and likewise newbies can identify and ask questions of more experienced members.
Dave, I think this latest change is a retrograde one, and I very much feel that it is knee-jerk reaction to some not so well thought out suggestions.
I think the old system worked just fine, so please put it back.
Also, a while ago suggestions regarding forum rules were taken.
In amongst these was the suggestion that all fields in the profile page be required ones, and it was stated that this would be incorporated, but so far this has not happened.
This would help in identifying members levels and outlooks.
Eric.
Well hot damn, shacks, golly gee, geemeny chricket, dog gone, son of a buck, motherofpearl they did it!
Whose berzerker idea was it to reduce all the members to a bunch of ken dolls with no genitals or arsholes?
Are these attributes too "dangerous"? Too politically incorrect?
Are they offensive to some "minority' on this site? Do they offend some retired old lady in Boca Raton?
Time for someone to slap some sense into some people 'round here.
Whose berzerker idea was it to reduce all the members to a bunch of ken dolls with no genitals or arsholes?
Are these attributes too "dangerous"? Too politically incorrect?
Are they offensive to some "minority' on this site? Do they offend some retired old lady in Boca Raton?
Time for someone to slap some sense into some people 'round here.
Re: If It Aint Broke, Then Don't Fix It.....
Not so. This particular change has been on the agenda for about 6 months. There are more coming. All thots will be considered -- there have been some really good angles from you guys that we had totally missed. Keep em comin'
dave
(in official capacity)
mrfeedback said:
Not so. This particular change has been on the agenda for about 6 months. There are more coming. All thots will be considered -- there have been some really good angles from you guys that we had totally missed. Keep em comin'
dave
(in official capacity)
Re: If It Aint Broke, Then Don't Fix It.....
This would be useful if valid. But tying it to post count is not valid.
Take Halojoy (994) our resident minstrel vrs MJK (38) co-inventor of reliable TL modeling or jcarr (104) world renowned audio designer.
What would be a scheme that would allow us to convey a level of expertise in a couple words?
A set of multiple choice selected by the member?
A rating based on years of experience?
How do we deal with the (most common) situation where people are very competent in one field and lost in another? (ie me. I'm comfortable with speakers, starting to find my way around a tube circuit, have almost figured out which end is up on a transistor, and am complelely lost when it comes to digital)
dave
mrfeedback said:
This would be useful if valid. But tying it to post count is not valid.
Take Halojoy (994) our resident minstrel vrs MJK (38) co-inventor of reliable TL modeling or jcarr (104) world renowned audio designer.
What would be a scheme that would allow us to convey a level of expertise in a couple words?
A set of multiple choice selected by the member?
A rating based on years of experience?
How do we deal with the (most common) situation where people are very competent in one field and lost in another? (ie me. I'm comfortable with speakers, starting to find my way around a tube circuit, have almost figured out which end is up on a transistor, and am complelely lost when it comes to digital)
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.