Just a couple of quick questions...

[bruno]

I think postcount and time spent here should both be considered. :lol:
Husbands/Wives wouldn't be good for me as i have no wives here.

 

[Mr Sunshine]

You would rather have it dependant on the number of REN husbands/wives? Nah that was a joke, but what else than postcount should it depend on. For one reason or another Steve is not using a reputation system on this board anymore, and without that there is only the postcount to use.



:lol:

If the member groups won't be improved in some way I don't see why they should exist. I mean they're almost like the s.t.a.r.s ranks.

Husbands/Wives wouldn't be good for me as i have no wives here.

:lol:

 

[Romero]

I think postcount and time spent here should both be considered.

Do you talk about the member groups or STARS ranks?

Anyway, I'm sorry but I'm not so sure I think time spent here is a good idea for a parameter, it would make it almost impossible for you to outrank someone who joined a few years before you (assuming alot of new groups were added). Should someone who was active here 2007-2008 and made i nice bunch of posts back then continue to rise in rank now even though they are not here anymore? I don't think that sounds right.

Now it's easy to achieve the Senior Member group, almost every active member is in this group. So the member groups doesn't play a big role other than to differ regular members from the staff.

I think what matters is how much you contribute and not when you signed up. Here are 2059 accounts with a postcount of 0, many of which are spambots. Should we let their rank increase over time?
You can say that members have to pass a threeshold before the timer kicks in, but alot of inactive members will be above that threeshold.

But it's great to discuss ideas.

 

[Mr Sunshine]

Anyway, I'm sorry but I'm not so sure I think time spent here is a good idea for a parameter, it would make it almost impossible for you to outrank someone who joined a few years before you (assuming alot of new groups were added). Should someone who was active here 2007-2008 and made i nice bunch of posts back then continue to rise in rank now even though they are not here anymore? I don't think that sounds right.

Now it's easy to achieve the Senior Member group, almost every active member is in this group. So the member groups doesn't play a big role other than to differ regular members from the staff.

I think what matters is how much you contribute and not when you signed up. Here are 2059 accounts with a postcount of 0, many of which are spambots. Should we let their rank increase over time?
You can say that members have to pass a threeshold before the timer kicks in, but alot of inactive members will be above that threeshold.

I'm pretty sure he means time spent online. An inactive member won't increase in rank.

If this happens though I will be leaving my computer open for days! :lol:

Anyway, If there is a need to see who contributes most I think that we should be able to have a better look at the "forum statistics" by clicking on them. We would be able to see a lot of interesting stuff(or staff? Darn!) like post count, threads stared count, time spent online, percentage of the total posts(your post count/total posts in the forum), most popular thread e.t.c

Also I believe that we must be able to see the "ten last posts" somehow so that we could navigate better and find new posts more easily.

 

[Romero]

Also I believe that we must be able to see the "ten last posts" somehow so that we could navigate better and find new posts more easily.

You already have "Today's Posts" in your Quick Links.

It works well if you have not been away for more than 24 hours. Unread threads older than 24-30 hours are not listed.

 

[bruno]

Do you talk about the member groups or STARS ranks?

Anyway, I'm sorry but I'm not so sure I think time spent here is a good idea for a parameter, it would make it almost impossible for you to outrank someone who joined a few years before you (assuming alot of new groups were added). Should someone who was active here 2007-2008 and made i nice bunch of posts back then continue to rise in rank now even though they are not here anymore? I don't think that sounds right.

Now it's easy to achieve the Senior Member group, almost every active member is in this group. So the member groups doesn't play a big role other than to differ regular members from the staff.

I think what matters is how much you contribute and not when you signed up. Here are 2059 accounts with a postcount of 0, many of which are spambots. Should we let their rank increase over time?
You can say that members have to pass a threeshold before the timer kicks in, but alot of inactive members will be above that threeshold.

But it's great to discuss ideas.

I'm pretty sure he means time spent online. An inactive member won't increase in rank.

Exactly. But I think BOTH timer spent online AND number of posts shouldbe considered. It's not fair if someone posts 100 times in a single day to have a higher rank than someone who posted 100 times in a month. Maybe the later likes to read through most of the thread before posting (he may be posting less, but learns more about the other members, etc).

 

[Romero]

Isn't the STARS ranks enough? I believe the member groups main function is to control privileges... i.e. the Admin group can do everything and the Banned group can do nothing...

 

[Mr Sunshine]

Isn't the STARS ranks enough? I believe the member groups main function is to control privileges... i.e. the Admin group can do everything and the Banned group can do nothing...

Hmmm.. good point. I have totally forgot the staff. Still though there is no need for the members to be divided into junior and senior. We have the s.t.a.r.s ranks for this. A single word for all the members will suffice I think.

Edited:

You already have "Today's Posts" in your Quick Links.

Wow thanks! I hadn't noticed that.

Edited: 24/7/2010 - Personal group titles have been introduced long ago. I won! :lol:

 

[Romero]

Hmmm.. good point. I have totally forgot the staff. Still though there is no need for the members to be divided into junior and senior. We have the s.t.a.r.s ranks for this. A single word for all the members will suffice I think.

We had a discussion on this in another topic here, I think Steve said something about this.

I agree that a single word for all members will suffice, but it's nothing wrong with the member group system as it is now. It doesn't hurt to have Junior Members, Members and Senior Members. My personal opinion is that I don't think it's worth bothering Steve with this.

 

[La Femme Fatale]

I agree that a single word for all members will suffice, but it's nothing wrong with the member group system as it is now. It doesn't hurt to have Junior Members, Members and Senior Members. My personal opinion is that I don't think it's worth bothering Steve with this.

I agree.

I mean, sure, the titles are kind of boring - but I would never have thought they are anywhere near problematic or significant enough to warrant such an indepth discussion about them, lol. 'Spose I was wrong. :lol:

 

[tequila]

Mistress, my love..... Super Moderator sounds so powerful :lol:

Please don't ban me.