Member Ranks

[boswellbaxter]

Everyone just got promoted to "Members"! After 100 posts, people become "Senior Members." (Some of you will be there in no time.)

It might be fun to invent some new titles later, though, unless people are really sentimentally attached to the old ones.

[Susan]

In the royalty forum I help moderate, we have two kinds of rankings. We have the usual ranking using the number of posts and we also have nominations. There may be posters who don't post a lot, but who are leaders in the forum, behave in an exemplary way, and have excellent posts. Those posters can be nominated for advancement. Previously, the administrators and the three moderators then voted. Recently, the administrator has added those posters of the highest rank to the voters. The administrator, any of the moderators, or any of the posters of the highest rank can nominate.

[boswellbaxter]

That's a neat idea!

[Susan]

That's a neat idea!

FYI, here’s what we do with ranks.

Based upon number of posts
New at Court: 0 – 99 posts
Lady in Waiting / Squire: 100 – 499 posts
Knight / Dame: 500 – 999 posts
Baron / Baroness: 1000 posts

Nominated and Voted
Grand Duke/Grand Duchess: 5-star posters awarded for the quality of their postings and their knowledge about royalty, can nominate and vote to advance other posters
Duke/Duchess: 5-star posters awarded for the quality of their postings and their knowledge about royalty
Earl/Countess: 3-star posters awarded for the quality of their postings and their knowledge about royalty

Appointed ranks
Empress: site administrator
Crown Prince/Princess: moderators

Other
In the Tower: On probation because of offenses

[Ash]

I prefer the number of posts. The whole voting thing reminds me of the High School popularity contests, and as another reunion is coming up that I will not go to, I'd prefer to move on, if we could :)

[MLE]

I prefer the number of posts. The whole voting thing reminds me of the High School popularity contests, and as another reunion is coming up that I will not go to, I'd prefer to move on, if we could :)
agreed. anybody remember the days when they picked teams by lining kids up and the worst players went last?

[Susan]

I prefer the number of posts. The whole voting thing reminds me of the High School popularity contests, and as another reunion is coming up that I will not go to, I'd prefer to move on, if we could :)

Using the number of posts can also be problematic because people could post many posts just to move ahead in rank. We do use the number of posts as I listed above, but the nomination/voting allows for the recognition of exemplary posters.

The nomination and the voting is done by a very small group of people and there is absolutely no popularity at all. We consider the quality of posts. Some of the people we have promoted don't post a lot, but what they have to say is important to the forum. Rewarding posters in this manner demonstrates to the readers on the forum what is considered to be good, valuable, polite, and respectful discussion.

[Susan]

agreed. anybody remember the days when they picked teams by lining kids up and the worst players went last?

But if I nominated someone and they were not voted to be promoted, they would never know, so it is not the same at all as standing in gym and watching as you are the last picked. It works well in the forum I help moderate. People know they can move up in rank based upon two methods.

[diamondlil]

I have moved these posts about member ranks from the thread where they were. We will leave the thread open for further discussion for a few days, and then we will set up a member poll, so that we can all vote as to what kind of member ranking structure you would like. At this point I would think that there would be four options in the poll

1. Member rankings based purely on no. of posts
2. No member rankings
3. Member rankings based on no. of posts, and then peer nominations as suggested by Susan earlier in the thread
4. Don't really care!


Carry on!

[Rowan]

I liked the old ranking names we had if anyone can remember them.

One thought I did have, though, is to make those who are published authors stand out by giving them a special title as some people might not connect their membernames with their full names.

[sweetpotatoboy]

My only thought on this matter is that it should be solely based on number of posts.

But, if I can make one suggestions, I think that there is too big a gap from 100 to 500. You get to 100 very quickly, especially as new members join and catch up but then it can take a long time to get to the next level. Just a thought.

[LCW]

But if I nominated someone and they were not voted to be promoted, they would never know, so it is not the same at all as standing in gym and watching as you are the last picked. It works well in the forum I help moderate. People know they can move up in rank based upon two methods.

The only problem I have with this is that since only a few people get to vote on who moves up in rank and it's so secret, it just seems too arbitrary for my liking. I'm sure it works well for your forum but personally I wouldn't like to see it here.

I think we have a pretty good group of people here who all post very helpful posts for the most part. I'm not worried about anyone clogging up the board with posts just to move up in rank. But that's just my two cents!

[boswellbaxter]

I don't remember anyone at the old forum posting a lot just to get their rank up, although I wasn't at the forum from the very beginning. It was far more common to have people (mostly authors promoting their novels) leave a post or two, then disappear.

[Kailana]

Maybe in the very beginning people were posting just for ranking purposes, but I think it was because it was new and people wanted to see what all the different titles were. Does this place allow that after a certain amount you can change it to whatever you want? It used to over at the other place, but I reached that status long ago and then became a mod and didn't really pay attention anymore, so maybe I'm wrong...

I think if you do use the old system it would be nice to have a few more ranks for some variety...

[MLE]

Hey, since part of a forum is about having fun, why not allow for a whole range of titles -- like professions of yore, for instance -- and then just let people pick? The forum software gives the join date and an updated count of posts right under the name after all, for anyone to whom seniority matters.

Some suggestions: military ranks or positions, such as centurion, archer, janissary, samurai, crossbowman, harquebusier, artilleryman, midshipman, captain, commodore, general, etc; Female and male titles, lady-in-waiting, countess, viscount, marchioness, and so forth; merchant or craftsman designations like blacksmith, pedlar, beggar, storyteller, bard, Indian scout, butler, chambermaid, detectuve -- there would be room for a lot of amusement, especially if the handle, like the avatar, could be switched according to what you are feeling.

[Tambo]

Using the number of posts can also be problematic because people could post many posts just to move ahead in rank.

Not much to be gained by that kind of thing though. It's not like high post counts win prizes.


I'm not a fan of the system you described, although it does has some good points.
I just worry that some posters who may otherwise make positive contributions are put off because they feel they are being judged.

[Susan]

One thought I did have, though, is to make those who are published authors stand out by giving them a special title as some people might not connect their membernames with their full names.

I think this is a good idea.

In reality, ranks really don't matter much. This forum (and the old one) seems to have well behaved posters who rarely get into heated discussions that require moderator intervention. This is not always so on the royalty forum I moderate where people can have overly passionate opinions about some royals (you all probably know who!). We had to have specific ground rules established for discussions of a certain trio who have the initials C, C, and D, although this discussion has calmed down considerably and now is almost non-existent. I prefer my royals long dead, so I never got into the fray. So on the royalty forum giving exemplary posters a promotion in rank not based upon post numbers is a motivation and serves as an example to others. It still is something to be considered for here. In my years of being a moderator, I've seen many examples of posters who have wonderful quality of posts, but not quantity of posts. I have also seen posters who have quantity, but lack quality. And to be clear...on the royalty forum, any one of the administrator, the moderators and the grand dukes/duchesses can nominate a poster for promotion. All communication is done by email, including discussion and voting. We don't even post anything on the forum when we promote a poster. The administrator merely changes the rank.

[Susan]

One more thought...I've seen a couple of posts here from people who had quite a number of posts on the old forum and who miss their old post total. Using a system that promotes exemplary posters could push posters like them ahead to a higher rank.

[Divia]

I wont lie. I had a ton of em. I missed my custom title "Warrior Goddess" I'm not gonna get my knickers in a knot over it though. I'm just happy this place is back and we can contiune our discussions on all things HF oriented.

[michellemoran]

I agree with Sweetpotatoboy. The jump between 100 and 500 is rather large.

As for how ranks should be assigned, I'm rather partial to the number of posts. I've never seen anyone post simply to move up in the "ranks". That would take some serious dedication - and all for a name!

[Margaret]

I always thought the ranks were fun, especially as I starting moving up in status. But I never realized it was based on the number of posts - I always thought people moved up in rank based on how long they had been members, since I seemed to go up a notch in rank about once a month.

I'd love to have ranks again. I like the idea about getting to pick from a larger range of professions. But I think, above all, whatever system is adopted should be easy for the moderators to manage. First and foremost, this forum is for discussion and information about historical fiction, and I wouldn't want any system to be adopted that might take too much of the moderators' valuable time away from that central purpose.

I think it's a great idea to have a special designation for published authors of historical fiction.

[Julianne Douglas]

Should I admit that I don't really see the point of the entire "rank determined by number of postings" thing? I never understood why it mattered how many posts one had made. One participant could make only occasional, but very pertinent and thought-provoking posts; another could post multiple times a day yet never really say anything noteworthy. As someone has pointed out, a member's number of posts is displayed in the upper right hand corner anyway for those who need that information.

I agree with MLE--there should be a broader choice of labels, all for fun. It would be neat to see what labels people choose and why.

[tsjmom]

Wow, I'm shocked that grown adults are even having this discussion, especially the part where you had to be voted in on the previous forum to attain a certain rank. Are you serious about that? If so, I'm actually kind of offended by that behavior, and it's really not something I'm interested in being part of. Sorry to be so blunt, but it sounds VERY junior high at best.

I was a merchant (but I've always wanted to be a French duchess ;) ), but it was just a fun thing. There's nothing to be gained by it (like a discount on some forums). I think a "title" attained at various number of posts is the fair thing. Yes, some may abuse it, but in the end I think it's the best choice. Just like in our justice system, don't punish the good guys to prevent the bad guys from doing something. Just my $.02.

[boswellbaxter]

The previous Historical Forum was strictly based on number of posts--no voting.

[MLE]

Wow, I'm shocked that grown adults are even having this discussion, especially the part where you had to be voted in on the previous forum to attain a certain rank. Are you serious about that? If so, I'm actually kind of offended by that behavior, and it's really not something I'm interested in being part of. Sorry to be so blunt, but it sounds VERY junior high at best.
We never voted anybody's rank on the original forum. the designation just changed automatically when you went past a certain number of posts.

[tsjmom]

FYI, here’s what we do with ranks.

Based upon number of posts
New at Court: 0 – 99 posts
Lady in Waiting / Squire: 100 – 499 posts
Knight / Dame: 500 – 999 posts
Baron / Baroness: 1000 posts

Nominated and Voted
Grand Duke/Grand Duchess: 5-star posters awarded for the quality of their postings and their knowledge about royalty, can nominate and vote to advance other posters
Duke/Duchess: 5-star posters awarded for the quality of their postings and their knowledge about royalty
Earl/Countess: 3-star posters awarded for the quality of their postings and their knowledge about royalty

Appointed ranks
Empress: site administrator
Crown Prince/Princess: moderators

Other
In the Tower: On probation because of offenses


This is to what I was referring. Please accept my apologies for not reading thru this thread in its entirety and putting the onus of such a backward idea on our previous forum. My confidence in HFOnline is restored;)

[michellemoran]

Julianne,

It's all just for fun. No point really ;) Tracking the number of posts is just one way of having the titles automatically change... there's no other significance behind it.

[Divia]

We could all have our own titles. We did this a MB where I was admin. We let people choose whatever they wanted, as long as it wasnt dirty ;) If we do that...no one had better take my cool title. :cool:

[Susan]

This is to what I was referring. Please accept my apologies for not reading thru this thread in its entirety and putting the onus of such a backward idea on our previous forum. My confidence in HFOnline is restored;)

Please read my posts on the voting in their entirety also. (I think I've explained it twice...at least.) I never said posters had to be voted on to go to a higher rank. It is an option in addition to using the number of posts for ranking and it is not backward at all. To be honest, I don't really care whether rankings are used or not used, but I offered the voting idea as a possibility because it works quite well in the forum I moderate.

[Susan]

We could all have our own titles. We did this a MB where I was admin. We let people choose whatever they wanted, as long as it wasnt dirty ;) If we do that...no one had better take my cool title. :cool:

I do like this idea, but is this problematic for administrators as they would have to enter each person's title? Divia, was this a problem at all when you were an adminstrator?

[Divia]

I do like this idea, but is this problematic for administrators as they would have to enter each person's title? Divia, was this a problem at all when you were an adminstrator?

No it wasnt a problem because the MB didn't have a lot of people (like here at the moment) and we were able to do them rather quickly. Of course everyone understood that they would have to PM their request but it wouldn't take place overnight. We would also wait for new users to get some posts under them before we changed their title(I think it was 20 or so).

Its very easy to change the titles. I used to do it all the time. However, we had a rule that you could only change your user title once a year. Otherwise people would be requesting to change them all the time.

Hope this helps :)

[Susan]

Should I admit that I don't really see the point of the entire "rank determined by number of postings" thing? I never understood why it mattered how many posts one had made. One participant could make only occasional, but very pertinent and thought-provoking posts; another could post multiple times a day yet never really say anything noteworthy. As someone has pointed out, a member's number of posts is displayed in the upper right hand corner anyway for those who need that information.

I agree with MLE--there should be a broader choice of labels, all for fun. It would be neat to see what labels people choose and why.

Yes, Julianne, and that is why I proposed using two options in moving up in rank. I do think I like having people choose their rank. I like the creativity of it!

[Catherine Delors]

1. Member rankings based purely on no. of posts
2. No member rankings
3. Member rankings based on no. of posts, and then peer nominations as suggested by Susan earlier in the thread
4. Don't really care!

My preference goes to 2, no member rankings. Mods are mods, and they deserve to be recognized as such, but apart from that, why would some of us be more equal than others?

As for nominations for exemplary behavior, I think we all behave in an exemplary manner here. :D

The titles of nobility are a great idea for a royalty site, but we are good old plebeian folk here.

My second choice would be 1, ranking based solely on number of posts, but then with fun titles:
under 100: wallflower
100 to 500: getting there
500 to 1,000: compulsive poster
over 1,000: nuts about posting

Just a suggestion...

[Susan]

My second choice would be 1, ranking based solely on number of posts, but then with fun titles:
under 100: wallflower
100 to 500: getting there
500 to 1,000: compulsive poster
over 1,000: nuts about posting

I do love your fun titles!!! :D

[MLE]

The point of keeping things easy on the moderators is a good one. Can titles/ ranks/ designations be enabled to change just like signatures or avatars? For that matter, if I can do anything I want with my signatures and avatar, why do I need a title for expression? I could just pick one for myself and add it to my signature.

Not that it isn't fun to have it up by your screen name, but thinking about the backlog of unpaid labor this creates for the mods, I'm wondering if it is worth it.

On the other hand, there is the issue of adding value to the forum, and giving incentives for doing so. I blushingly confess that when I was within a few posts of going up in rank, I was far more likely to throw in posts on 'word association' or some other thread which would really not be helpful to anyone else. (Except to demonstrate to other players that I like weird words and have a twisted sense of humor, that is!)

Just rambling. No conclusions. But one wish: I would like this forum, and not Amazon or some other commercially controlled venue, to become a premier resource for those who make decisions as to which books are worth publishing and/or re-issuing. I would like to see many people who really read and enjoy a variety of HF be able to communicate on what is worthwhile. For one thing the old system of publishers and critics has blown wide open, and new mechanisms are being invented to filter the gold from the dross. So now that there is a fresh page, lets put our brains to work on doing that well.

[Kailana]

Frankly, I would just like my original title back... I had it for at least two years! It looks weird to not have it anymore...

[Susan]

We had to have specific ground rules established for discussions of a certain trio who have the initials C, C, and D, although this discussion has calmed down considerably and now is almost non-existent. I prefer my royals long dead, so I never got into the fray.

Aargh! They're talking about them again on the royalty forums. I think I will hang out over here where it is safe! :eek:

[pat]

Linked to the amount of posts, how about titles such as: scribe, clerk, secretary, and so on, based on writing? Mods could then be given the title of editor...hehehe!

Just my thoughts...

[diamondlil]

In answer to a question asked about the rankings. I am pretty sure that they can be set to go up automatically, but the custom title option would have to be done manually.

I do feel the pain about the number of posts that you all had at the other site! I was very nearly at 10000 :eek:Lots to say apparently! Never mind! We are all going in the right direction at the moment as it is!

[Divia]

The fact that we have a MB at all says that we are going in the right direction :) I miss the ranks, but like I said before I wont get my knickers in a knot. Now, if we didnt have avatars my knickers would be in a tight bind. :p

We were a vocal group but we had a lot of cool stuff to talk about. I miss those old threads, but we can only move forward!

[Ash]

>anybody remember the days when they picked teams by lining kids up and the worst players went last

Are you kidding? I even remember the day they decided to auction us off for the summer softball league and I was sold, last on the field, for a penny. And don't get me talking about the Fatman races.

Anyway, I don't really care, do as you please. Tho I did like the royalty names because it was fun!

[Misfit]

Ash you are too funny :D:)

I keep forgetting to step into this topic with my own opinion. I think I'm fine with ranks by # of posts like before (geez, I finally got royalty and now I'm back to square one :p).

[boswellbaxter]

>anybody remember the days when they picked teams by lining kids up and the worst players went last

Are you kidding? I even remember the day they decided to auction us off for the summer softball league and I was sold, last on the field, for a penny. And don't get me talking about the Fatman races.

Anyway, I don't really care, do as you please. Tho I did like the royalty names because it was fun!

I was always chosen last for these things too. The good thing was that by the time I was picked, the game was almost over.

[Ash]

I was always chosen last for these things too. The good thing was that by the time I was picked, the game was almost over.

Hee, really. Actually I learned that I could sneak away during the game with a book and not be missed.....

[Catherine Delors]

Look at this issue from a French Revolution perspective: HF.org was the Old Regime, with its antiquated titles of nobility, then there was Bastille Day, and now we all start from scratch as equal citizens of HFonline. Isn't that neat?

Truth be told, I don't miss the old titles, because I used to be something like dogcatcher. :rolleyes: In any case, if we decide to go back to a title system, let's come up with something automated that wouldn't cause extra work for the mods, like the number of posts. Rating each other's posts would be time-consuming and might lead to some unpleasantness down the line.

[Leyland]

Here are some fun ranks for bibliophiles:

0-100 - Author

101-300 - Agent

301-500 – Editor

501-800 – Proofreader

801-1000 - Publisher

1000+ - Freelancer

[Catherine Delors]

The authors are stuck at the bottom rung?

[Leyland]

The author starts the entire publishing process, so all the 'authors' on the site start the forum process in a similar way.

[Spitfire]

It does'nt really matter to me what you decide about member ranks. I think the old system based on number of posts was just fine. I think the most of us who post on this site come here because we are truly interrested in reading and discussing historical fiction. Not about gaining some inconsequential status in a fourm group. So that being said, whatever you do is fine with me. I just come here because of the books, eh!

[TerriPray]

If it went on the book trade it would be


Reader

Buyer (For stores)

Author

Agent

Editor

Proofer

Editor in Chief

Publisher

*eg* you see it's the patterns of the readers and buyers that then influence what books the editors then buy from the authors. Unless it's small press where the editor in chief has greater power to buy books that personally appeal to them instead of having to buy to current and projected market trends.

It's why you'll often find gems in small press as they don't have larger companies to answer to, which in turn have share holders to answer to. We also don't do the massive print runs, so don't take the larger risks with the unheard of authors, or potentially risky book.

[Catherine Delors]

True, Terripray, and then it goes back full circle to the reader...

[nona]

I'm just happy this place is back and we can contiune our discussions on all things HF oriented.


I have to agree with you, it's good to be back to talking about books with everyone here, I was lost for a period of time.

[Misfit]

Nona, good to see you here and it seem Eigon joined today as well. There are still a few stragglers posting over at the old board.

[diamondlil]

We have set up some user rankings. We have started with our shared love of reading as the basis:

Scribbler 0
Reader 50
Avid Reader 250
Compulsive Reader 500
Bibliophile 1000
Bibliomanic 2000


We can always change them as we go along if we need to.

[Carine]

Good idea ! I like it !

[Catherine Delors]

I can see that I am indeed a scribbler now! Cool...

[pat]

They look good!