Member Ranks

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 9:48 pm

[quote=""Susan""]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?[/quote]

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 · Post by **Susan** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 9:52 pm

[quote=""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.[/quote]

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 · Post by **Catherine Delors** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 9:56 pm

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.

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 · Post by **Susan** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 10:19 pm

[quote=""Catherine Delors""]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[/quote]

I do love your fun titles!!!

MLE (Emily Cotton) · Post by **MLE (Emily Cotton)** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 10:28 pm

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 · Post by **Kailana** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 10:44 pm

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 · Post by **Susan** » Thu August 28th, 2008, 11:40 pm

[quote=""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.[/quote]

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

pat · Post by **pat** » Fri August 29th, 2008, 4:36 am

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 · Post by **diamondlil** » Fri August 29th, 2008, 9:24 pm

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

Lots to say apparently! Never mind! We are all going in the right direction at the moment as it is!

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Fri August 29th, 2008, 9:27 pm

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.

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!