|
|
Post by Andy on Jan 3, 2020 0:31:47 GMT
We are considering changes to our forum ranking systems and would like your input.
Why? When we started the forum, we pretty much went with the ProBoards defaults and our experience on prior forums. A recent thread about these ranks has us considering whether it is time for a change.
What are Forum Ranks? - Each member is assigned a rank based on the number of posts they have. It starts with New Forum Member, then Casual Forum Member, Known Forum Member, Frequent Contributor, and Senior Contributor.
What do we want from our members? - Suggestions for new rankings!
Criteria:
1) The ranks must have some type of intuitive hierarchy (pawn, rook, king, queen, etc.) and not be just a list of items (tulip, rose, pansy, violet, etc.)
2) Somewhere between 5-10 ranks
3) As always on this forum - keep it clean and appropriate
Just post your ideas back on this thread.
Thank you in advance for your support.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peterj on Jan 3, 2020 0:43:45 GMT
I tend to ignore such rankings. A brand new member might be an expert in certain photographic aspects and their posts should not be de-valued by a label.
|
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,362
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
Member is Online
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Jan 3, 2020 1:01:53 GMT
We had some lighthearted discussion recently here.
Ranks are no biggie and I lean to what Peter said. The number of posts are casually relevant, but assigning rankings or categories etc for members is not really needed. If ProBaords insists, then we can come up with something. Identifying those who are mods or admin is a good idea and perhaps helps new members. My two bits. Clive |
|
|
|
Post by blackmutt on Jan 3, 2020 1:25:49 GMT
I agree with the above. I don’t care about rankings. The only useful ones to me is moderate or similar if I was new. Otherwise meh, don’t need them
|
|
|
|
Post by kdcintx on Jan 3, 2020 3:36:46 GMT
I also agree with the above comments. It seems to me that the number of posts is sufficient to indicate participation. The mods/admins need to remain identified.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tpgettys on Jan 3, 2020 7:21:57 GMT
While I agree with the sentiments expressed here so far, I can't help but notice that you are all very prolific contributors (i.e. not a random sample!) and so I would ask that you consider the larger picture. I hope I am not stepping on any toes by sharing this, but Andy, our senior administrator (the Grand Poobah, if you will!), said this: "I see member rankings as a way of conferring a level of credibility on a given member. If a member asks a question, a response from a 'Senior Contributor' can be interpreted as having more credibility than one from a 'Casual Forum Member'. It might mean the response is coming from one of our very technically savvy members and at the very least from someone who is a regular participant in the forum. I realize it isn't always that way in practice, and frequent posting doesn't mean someone is an expert (nor do I mean to imply that our casual users are not technically capable)."
So yeah, the ranking is certainly not an absolute stamp of authority, but it is meaningful.
Since we do have rankings in place, the question is how many should we have, what do we label them, and what should the cut-points be?
Right now there are 5: New Forum Member 0 Casual Forum Member 50 Known Forum Member 300 Frequent Contributor 800 Senior Contributor 1400
Personally, I don't care for 'Frequent Contributor', and really don't like Known Forum Member', but that is just me. I also think there should be more rather than fewer ranks, but again that is just me!
And finally and always, this should be fun! With all that in mind, what say you?!
|
|
|
|
Post by cats4jan on Jan 3, 2020 9:20:19 GMT
I don’t know my ranking but I’m going to look after this post.
Seems a strange thing for the Admin to be concerned with, though.
I’d rather see a permanent listing of hometown/country and first name in that area. In responses, I like to refer to a member by first name, but I can never keep people straight without a reminder of their name. And I love to see where people live. I love to see how global a site is.
I know there are ways for one to add first name and hometown/country if they choose, but I’d love for it to be default with the choice of opting out if one wants to remain private.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jan 3, 2020 12:34:19 GMT
I have always thought the names a little odd. To me having the stars and/or number of posts is enough to indicate the frequency of contributions without having names as well. It’s obviously important for Administrators to be singled out so unless there are any other categories of membership to be singled out I’d stick with just either Member or Administrator.
Tony
|
|
mrkrnbrd
Junior Forum Member
Alive
Posts: 94 
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by mrkrnbrd on Jan 3, 2020 13:19:50 GMT
I'm only posting here to increase my rank  |
|
|
|
Post by blackmutt on Jan 3, 2020 15:34:51 GMT
Agreed, the stars are enough of an indicator. The titles other than moderator/admin are odd.
|
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,362
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
Member is Online
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Jan 3, 2020 16:30:48 GMT
The titles other than moderator/admin are odd.Perhaps they are trying to tell us something.  Joke. Agree that the names are a tad odd and perhaps the stars are adequate. The assigned names are 100% based on posts anyway. Maybe the stars are adequate. As Maurice recently said he is now a "Known Forum Member" which is kinda like being "known to police." Like the admin and mod handles. Janice said this "I’d rather see a permanent listing of hometown/country and first name in that area." One respects people's rights to privacy, but agree with her. I feel a bit silly using the nicknames when speaking to someone who I "know" here. And most people here often use first names. Good discussion. |
|
Fauxtoto
Established Forum Member
Quebec, Canada
Posts: 440
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by Fauxtoto on Jan 3, 2020 16:39:03 GMT
My view is that the ranking feature is worth keeping and that it does not need to be changed. I have no objection to changes, though, for example if some dedications are found to look too odd. A thread could be created in the FAQs board to briefly explain where the ranking feature comes from, what it is and what is the number of posts corresponding to each level (designation/number of stars). My rational, enlightened by the precedent posts I had the privilege to read, is: - The quantity of posts can be a valuable indication of the experience on the forum. - The quantity of posts is not an indicator of substantial quality. This inherent limitation of the ranking feature can be left the appreciation of the viewer. - The choices with regard to the numbers of ranks, the number of posts per rank, the designation of each rank will always remain arbitrary and subjective to a certain extent. There will always be divergent preferences even among reasonable ones. - The current choices that have been made seem appropriate and adequate to me. - Even if the ranking feature can be valuable, its relative importance on the success of the forum does not justify too much energy spending. When I started the thread mentioned by pontiac1940 , I was joking. I certainly did not want to cause any headache to anyone. Thank you Andy and the administrators for your consideration, as well as for your continuous attention and dedicated work. It is much appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by ritage on Jan 3, 2020 17:08:23 GMT
Might ranking or stars be based on the helpfulness of posts instead of the frequency. This would require a "helpful" button in addition to "like".
Posters asking questions usually politely say thank you, but I'm sure others benefit from the same answers who might click such a button.
Rita
|
|
|
|
Post by Peterj on Jan 3, 2020 17:28:51 GMT
Whatever changes are implemented won't affect my participation.
I think the number of stars is sufficient without other labels other than moderator, administrator, owner.
|
|
|
|
Post by cats4jan on Jan 3, 2020 18:13:40 GMT
To expand on Pete's comment - "number of stars is sufficient" - I'd say, the number of posts is sufficient - the stars and names are both redundant.
|
|
Joke. 
