PDA

View Full Version : Question: How to find the "ranking" by # of posts


Hoven
Aug 6, 2004, 09:43 AM
Hi,
Is there somewhere to look up the "rankings" for folks (based on their number of posts)?
I know that those with Avatars have exceeded the 500 post mark, but what about the others? Obviously, zero to (???) are called "Newbies". What are the other ranks and post counts?

Thanks!

jsw
Aug 6, 2004, 09:46 AM
I'm trying to find the link to the numbers, but an easy way to figure it out is to go the the "Members List" in the toolbar above and sort by post. It's pretty obvious....

jsw
Aug 6, 2004, 09:48 AM
There's probably a better place to look, but here's a thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=76074&highlight=65816) to look into....

Edit: That thread links to this one (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=33346).

Hoven
Aug 6, 2004, 10:01 AM
There's probably a better place to look, but here's a thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=76074&highlight=65816) to look into....

Edit: That thread links to this one (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=33346).

Thanks! That makes some sense now. I found this in the thread posted by Freg3000 (aka FregTK):

Newbie = 0 - 29 posts
Member => 30 posts
Regular => 100 posts
6502 => 500 posts
65816 => 1000 posts
65832 => 1500 posts
68000 => 1505 posts
68010 => 2000 posts
68020 => 2005 posts
68030 => 3000? posts
68040 => 4000? posts
601 => 5000?+ posts

Thanks! I'm thinking I have a ways to go to be a useful contributor. :rolleyes:

Doctor Q
Aug 6, 2004, 12:08 PM
I'm thinking I have a ways to go to be a useful contributor.Don't confuse quantity with quality. Newbies' posts may be as well thought out or useful to other members as those with high post counts and rankings to show for it. Treat ranks for what they are - a record of how long a member has been joining in the conversation at this site. It is also evidence that the member is well known to other members and more likely to know the site history. It's not a merit badge, just a posting milestone.

Dr. Dastardly
Aug 6, 2004, 08:36 PM
Don't confuse quantity with quality. Newbies' posts may be as well thought out or useful to other members as those with high post counts and rankings to show for it. Treat ranks for what they are - a record of how long a member has been joining in the conversation at this site. It is also evidence that the member is well known to other members and more likely to know the site history. It's not a merit badge, just a posting milestone.
Well said! I sometimes see someone become holy than thou once they get there avatar. Never really thought of why until now. :D

I guess I'm still a stupid noob. :eek:

Darwin
Aug 8, 2004, 11:32 AM
Thanks! That makes some sense now. I found this in the thread posted by Freg3000 (aka FregTK):

Newbie = 0 - 29 posts
Member => 30 posts
Regular => 100 posts
6502 => 500 posts
65816 => 1000 posts
65832 => 1500 posts
68000 => 1505 posts
68010 => 2000 posts
68020 => 2005 posts
68030 => 3000? posts
68040 => 4000? posts
601 => 5000?+ posts

Thanks! I'm thinking I have a ways to go to be a useful contributor. :rolleyes:

Still got a long way to go for me :D

Perhaps you could add a 300 post rank :D :p

Just curious, how come some rankings only have 5 posts difference between them?

invaLPsion
Aug 8, 2004, 01:16 PM
Thanks! That makes some sense now. I found this in the thread posted by Freg3000 (aka FregTK):



Thanks! I'm thinking I have a ways to go to be a useful contributor. :rolleyes:

Just because you have zillions of posts you aren't necessarily a good contributor. You may have just spent a lot of time complaining about why your computer hasn't arrived yet. :D

(I know I have at least 20 of those :D )

musicpyrite
Aug 8, 2004, 10:19 PM
Still got a long way to go for me :D

Perhaps you could add a 300 post rank :D :p

Just curious, how come some rankings only have 5 posts difference between them?
The rankings are based on processor speeds, the longer a processor was used, the more posts it takes to get to it, but the 65832 processor was only avaliable for a very short time.

jsw
Aug 8, 2004, 10:50 PM
The rankings are based on processor speeds, the longer a processor was used, the more posts it takes to get to it, but the 65832 processor was only avaliable for a very short time.
True. Of course, one wonders why there are no processor-based ranks above the 601 - which came out, what, a decade or more ago?