Doing a quick head count of the member list there are about 1000 members who qualify or have reached 500 posts or "avatar status" so its not really as big a milestone as it once was, I would be curious as to the number of avatars say a year a go and wonder how many people have reached the 500 post mark in that 12 month period. With the amount of active posters those who I would consider veterans would have at least 2000-2500 posts. So I would suggest some new benchmarks be written, since its getting harder to see who has been here 6 months from 5 years.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Should the 500 post benchmark be raised.
- Thread starter MacNut
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. I worked hard for my 500 posts to get an avatar. The avatar for me was about gaining an incredible knowledge about macs- I don't think it's fair to say oh 500 posts doesn't mean anything. It shouldn't be about "milestones"- we get that with our ranking.
Isn't that why there are the status levels like 603 and so on? And you can always see from someone's profile what their join date was.
I am talking about the members who have been here for say 6 months and already have 500 posts, As more newer members get avatars its diluting the forums and the ability to see who has been here a while vs the person who just signed up. Im suggesting some sort of veteran marker for those who have actually been here for a longer period of time, not just the number of posts they have.
How about:
<500 posts, no avatar
500 posts, 50x50 pixel avatar
1000, 53x53 pixel avatar
1500, 56x56 pixel avatar
2000, 59x59 pixel avatar
2500, 62x62 pixel avatar
3000, 65x65 pixel avatar
3500, 68x68 pixel avatar
4000, 71x71 pixel avatar
4500, 74x74 pixel avatar
5000, 77x77 pixel avatar
5500, 80x80 pixel avatar
6000, 83x83 pixel avatar
6500, 86x86 pixel avatar
7000, 89x89 pixel avatar
7500, 92x92 pixel avatar
8000, 95x95 pixel avatar
8500, 98x98 pixel avatar
9000, 101x101 pixel avatar
9500, 104x014 pixel avatar
10000, feature length film
etc...
Basically, you get plus 3 pixels per 500 posts.
<500 posts, no avatar
500 posts, 50x50 pixel avatar
1000, 53x53 pixel avatar
1500, 56x56 pixel avatar
2000, 59x59 pixel avatar
2500, 62x62 pixel avatar
3000, 65x65 pixel avatar
3500, 68x68 pixel avatar
4000, 71x71 pixel avatar
4500, 74x74 pixel avatar
5000, 77x77 pixel avatar
5500, 80x80 pixel avatar
6000, 83x83 pixel avatar
6500, 86x86 pixel avatar
7000, 89x89 pixel avatar
7500, 92x92 pixel avatar
8000, 95x95 pixel avatar
8500, 98x98 pixel avatar
9000, 101x101 pixel avatar
9500, 104x014 pixel avatar
10000, feature length film
etc...
Basically, you get plus 3 pixels per 500 posts.
The minimum should be raised to 10,000 posts for a 75x75 pixel avatar and 20,000 posts to get 100x100 pixel avatar.
At 50,000 posts, one should have the ability to use custom titles.
At 50,000 posts, one should have the ability to use custom titles.
MacNut said:
Does it really matter who's been here six months or five years?
If it bugs you, just make a textedit document with a list of oldtimers in it and scan it over when you wanna know who is new and who is old.
*shrug*
Personally, I like things they way they are now. Anyone above 500 posts gets an avatar and the mods get larger avatars. -- It's nice and simple. 
As katie says, does it really matter? There are knowledgeable newbies and there are dumb old-timers. I've been signed up for a year and a half, but have frequented the forums for about five years now...what type of symbol should I have next to my name?
Avatar "status" is granted to those who have made a significant contribution to the forums. Reading the forums but not posting is great for some people, but it's not really contributing to the site...not there's anything wrong with that. Post count is one decent of measure of this though...no, it's not perfect, but it's pretty good. It's a pretty tough sell to argue that 500 posts is considered significant today but not tomorrow. I see no compelling reason to change it.
Would you like join dates for users listed in the forums under their user names? I wouldn't, as I think it clutters things too much and I know most of the members already. But maybe you and others out there would like that sort of thing.
Avatar "status" is granted to those who have made a significant contribution to the forums. Reading the forums but not posting is great for some people, but it's not really contributing to the site...not there's anything wrong with that. Post count is one decent of measure of this though...no, it's not perfect, but it's pretty good. It's a pretty tough sell to argue that 500 posts is considered significant today but not tomorrow. I see no compelling reason to change it.
Would you like join dates for users listed in the forums under their user names? I wouldn't, as I think it clutters things too much and I know most of the members already. But maybe you and others out there would like that sort of thing.
If you changed it I'd have have to change my avatar and that took me like 5 minutes to create. You don't want me to have to do extra work do you?
Even if people are relatively new, if they've managed to get to 500 posts without getting banned, they've contributed at least something to the community, so I don't really see this as a problem.
Additionally the whole point of avatars is to help with recognition of a member, and as most of the veterans keep theirs the same they should be easily spotted in threads.
Additionally the whole point of avatars is to help with recognition of a member, and as most of the veterans keep theirs the same they should be easily spotted in threads.
Is longevity the best measure of value to the community?
Just as post count shouldn't be the most important measure of worth, neither I suspect should length of membership.
Who contributes more? The new member who posts a couple of times a day across the forums and gets their tar in 6 months or so... or the member who joined up 4 years ago, only reads usually and still doesn't have a 'tar?
Just as post count shouldn't be the most important measure of worth, neither I suspect should length of membership.
Who contributes more? The new member who posts a couple of times a day across the forums and gets their tar in 6 months or so... or the member who joined up 4 years ago, only reads usually and still doesn't have a 'tar?
why does this have anything to do with an avatar? Why not just list below the avatar "member since 05/2003"? That would differentiate time and would keep # of posts tied to getting a pic.
MacNut said:
If you've been here for 4 years then you should have a general idea who the old-timers are. I've been a member or lurker for about 3 years and I can generally recognize the older members, or more importantly, the helpful members (there isn't a direct correlation...
)