Should the 500 post benchmark be raised.

[baby duck monge]

I don't know if it would be possible to implement this, but here goes:

There is a system in place to give positive and negative ratings to threads. Would it be possible to add a ranking system to people? It could appear as a number of apples or something under their name, and you could rate posters for how useful you thought they have been (or how much of a 'regular' you think they are, or whatever).

One important difference between this and the thread ratings, though, would have to be that they are ratings that only you see. I don't want this to be some way by which you can sully someone's name, just a way that you can keep tabs on things yourself.

Everyone could start out with either no stars (unrated) or one star (base rating), and perhaps there could even be a feature added to ignore posts by people with only one star (if everyone starts unrated) or no stars (if everyone starts with one star).

Anyway, I don't know what the difficulties in implementing such a system would be, but it would be a good way for people to keep track of whatever they thought was important without everyone having to conform to the same criteria.


3.5 yrs - just over 1000 posts

 

[Blue Velvet]

...Would it be possible to add a ranking system to people?

Can't confirm this but I suspect there is a ranking system already in place, but solely for the use of mods and gods to keep tabs (and comments) on the rest of us.

 

[thedude110]

You know it is funny, I can honestly say that before today I have never seen you around the boards. In fact, when I did a quick check of all of your posts for the last few months I found out why... you hardly ever post about Mac related topics.

I may not have reached 1000 posts yet... but I'll bet that I've written more that has to do with the very existence of these forums than a veteran like you.

Is this productive? MR is a broad community that allows many members to participate in many different ways. The "very existence of the forums" is rooted in the community those members create, not the places those members post.

 

[Queso]

500 is the right limit. The mods and other members know by that point who the poster is and whether they make sense or not. It you've been here four years and only posted thirty times, your particular style may not yet be revealed.

The actual joining date is irrelevant in comparison.

 

[baby duck monge]

Can't confirm this but I suspect there is a ranking system already in place, but solely for the use of mods and gods to keep tabs (and comments) on the rest of us.

If such a thing did exist, surely it could be adapted to what I suggested. Even if we just made private comments about people it could be useful (especially in places like the Marketplace). Would love to hear more from a g/mod!

 

[dextertangocci]

No. It is difficult to reach 500 posts.

 

[TBi]

The only thing i'd like to see (although hard to explain fully) is a 5-star rating system for users. Where users who give good accurate replies to questions and give good information get higher star ratings than people who don't. This could be expanded to a 5 positive + 5 negative star rating.

Give everyone the ability to vote for a person based on their post with people with higher star ratings given higher weighting in their votes. I.E. a 5 star veteran can give someone a bigger boost with a vote than a newbie.

I know this system can be abused by making tonnes of fake accounts which vote for a single person but you could restrict the voting to people who have over 500 posts. Also the mods could be given a special vote to downgrade people they believe have been unfairly voted up, this however should not allow them to "up" someone any more than their star count permits.

Another way to beat abuse where everyone votes for each other is to weigh the points of the person minus the votes they got off the person they are voting for. So if user X with 4 stars votes for user Y with 4 stars bringing Y up to 5 then if Y votes for X then Y will only appear as a level 4 (i.e. without X's influence).

With this system then people who regularly post false information will get 0 stars (or negative stars). This would also apply to people who spam and troll. Don't ban them just let everyone know they are trolls and liars.

Every new person could start off with maybe 1 or 2 stars in a 5 star system, or 0 stars in the +/- star system.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

EDIT: Seems i was beaten to the post although unlike the original poster i'd want everyone to be able to see the ratings.

 

[celebrian23]

I hate forums with rating systems for the users (I don't mind for mod reasons ) I think it drives people away and is way too easy to abuse

 

[baby duck monge]

I hate forums with rating systems for the users (I don't mind for mod reasons ) I think it drives people away and is way too easy to abuse

This is exactly why I wanted to keep the ratings private. I know I have people that I never care to read posts by (and would never do a deal with in the Marketplace), but I wouldn't presume that other people would share those feelings with me. Under my private system, ratings would just be a way for you to keep track of people you want to keep track of; you wouldn't have to give ratings to anyone if you wanted, and one person's vendetta could not ruin another's reputation.

Besides, people seem bad enough at thanking those who have helped them out as it is. I suspect things would end up much like complaints about computers where people are much more vocal about rating something negatively and fairly ambivalent about giving a positive review.

 

[spicyapple]

I wouldn't mind if it were to be raised to 2,500 posts. Fewer avatars means less visual clutter when reading the board.

 

[TBi]

The rating (star) system would only be an indicator for people as to who to trust when reading posts. It wouldn't be a way to gain more "power" over the forums.

I think all users should only be allowed vote for another user once with the ability to change your vote (0-5 stars). Also all the star rankings should be re-evaluated each week (or day as processing time permits) according to the current rating of the people who voted for you. Although this would be a headache to program

It could be abused but that is why the mods should be given a "super" down vote. If a person has been unfairly voted up then a mod can vote him down affecting him and anyone else he unfairly voted up. Since all the mods can vote seperately then a person could be quickly voted down to zero if he doesn't use the system correctly.

Also since regular users can give someone a bad vote then you can vote down people who are voting each other up. Combined these should keep things in order. There will always be more "normal" users to vote down the "bad apple" users. Kinda like neighbourhood watch and the police working together to keep the nasties from causing trouble.

Lastly the mod down vote could be used as a reason to ban an account of a user for abusing the system in place. Usually a user who abuses something like this will also cause trouble elsewhere. A banned account would remove all their votes from whoever they voted for.

 

[Sun Baked]

I wouldn't mind if it were to be raised to 2,500 posts. Fewer avatars means less visual clutter when reading the board.

Raising it to 2,500 posts would mean more posts with newbies whining about not getting an avatar -- and likely more people spamming their way to one.

Nothing says you have to take advantage of a 500 post avatar.

Of course it would probably be less trouble to just turn them all off and not worry about it -- sure would cut down on all these threads, then again the smiley debate will never end either.

 

[TBi]

Besides, people seem bad enough at thanking those who have helped them out as it is. I suspect things would end up much like complaints about computers where people are much more vocal about rating something negatively and fairly ambivalent about giving a positive review.

You make a good point, i'd like my system to allow me to pinpoint who i trust and i distrust personally. With my votes being seperate to everyone elses. However i'd also like to be able to weigh it up against what other people think of someone I haven't dealt with yet. I'd rather not find out the hard way that no one really trusts the guy i'm dealing with.

 

[TBi]

Raising it to 2,500 posts would mean more posts with newbies whining about not getting an avatar -- and likely more people spamming their way to one.

Nothing says you have to take advantage of a 500 post avatar.

Of course it would probably be less trouble to just turn them all off and not worry about it -- sure would cut down on all these threads, then again the smiley debate will never end either.

I like the avatars because it allows you to visually distinguish users you know. Until they change their avatar that is. I'm currently using my Bunny to pin point my own posts as i scroll.

 

[calculus]

OK, here's my suggestion...

500 posts gets you one, 1000 gets it taken away, 1500 gets it back and so on.

 

[exabytes18]

...
9000, 101x101 pixel avatar
9500, 104x014 pixel avatar
10000, feature length film
etc...

Basically, you get plus 3 pixels per 500 posts.

With that system, you get more like 309 + 18(n-1) pixels for each additional 500 posts (n) after the initial 500 posts.

 

[Macmaniac]

I don't think it should be changed. Its been 500 ever since I joined, and that was 5 years ago. Don't change it!

 

[baby duck monge]

You make a good point, i'd like my system to allow me to pinpoint who i trust and i distrust personally. With my votes being seperate to everyone elses. However i'd also like to be able to weigh it up against what other people think of someone I haven't dealt with yet. I'd rather not find out the hard way that no one really trusts the guy i'm dealing with.

I find that - especially in the Marketplace - you can always ask if someone has references and then actually check those references. I know I keep using the Marketplace as an example, but it seems like one of the most important places to know if someone is trustworthy or not. You can also search for forums for threads about the person since people who get burned are usually quite vocal about it.

Perhaps there could be a public rating system in the Marketplace where you rate someone positive or negative when you have made a transaction with them and that would be a good indication. I would want this to only extend to the Marketplace and I would only want it to be used by people who have completed a transaction with someone.

I wouldn't mind if it were to be raised to 2,500 posts. Fewer avatars means less visual clutter when reading the board.

There is an option in your preferences to turn avatars off completely, so you could always use that function to completely eliminate the clutter.

 

[whocares]

No. It is difficult to reach 500 posts.

No it's not. Ask mad jew.


Please, no user ranking system.

On second thoughts (and reading comments in this thread), I think join date is quite irrelevant.

 

[szark]

I don't think we need to change the current system. It has worked very well ever since the site's inception. I'm sure if you were to measure the percentage of users who have avatars, the number would be approximately the same now as it was several years ago.

...since its getting harder to see who has been here 6 months from 5 years.

If you're having a discussion, and feel the need to know how long the person has been here, just click on their name and bring up their profile -- takes but a few seconds.

 

[Killyp]

500 is a scary number for a newbie. Don't make it any higher. Sure, I've managed to reach quite a few posts in a short amount of time, but I only like to post where I feel it's worth it. Spamming is not only irritating but I find it difficult too! What do you spam about?!?

I'm really looking forward to the big 500 where I can have my little Jamiroquai avatar! It's a really great system I think.

 

[Felldownthewell]

I realize that this thread has moved on a bit in the direction of rating systems and so on, but I just want to go back and point out that it does not matter if you have been a member for a day or if you are a 604; anybody can post helpful information and anybody can make a stupid post. If some people can get 500 good posts in a few months, all it means is that they enjoy using MR and take full advantage of everything it offers; if they were abusing the system they would be banned. However, the same could be said for a 4 year veteran with 50 posts if every post was helpful... neither registered time nor post counts mean a whole lot.

The only way I think we could make it obvious who has been here longer is have the rating system be based on time, and not on post counts, which makes very little sense...

Or, we could do the communist thing and have there be no titles at all

 

[RacerX]

Is this productive?

No more (or less) than the original post of this thread.

The original poster was pushing post number as a way to mark those people he felt were important to the boards... mainly because he would fall into that category. Well, I suggest we do it based on what Mac help and information we can provide to the boards... mainly because I would fall into that category (and he wouldn't).

It wasn't meant to be helpful or productive. It was meant to illustrate the fact that when you attempt to set up special privileges that exclude others, it doesn't feel all that great when you find yourself being one of the "others".

If the original poster is such a valued member of the community, then why does he have a constant need to discuss this topic?

Is this productive? Honestly, there is nothing productive about this thread.

 

[xsedrinam]

.

 

[Kardashian]

I'm nearly on 500.