hahahaha! I should have known!
Is there any reason to have rankings at all? You already have the "date joined", and the "number of posts". That seems to say it all! Giving rankings seems to imply some sort of value judgment.
Maybe each member could choose a two word description of their own to be published under their name.
Great idea Phoenix - so many people are conused by being ranked. It is getting to the point now that we might even have a majority of people that have never even heard of Abuzz.
Call it competition or value judgment if you want, but people enjoy accomplishing something - hitting that 50th or 100th or 1000th post and getting bumped up is kind of fun. Lets not make the place sterile.
Larry do you really think it is an accomplishment to be ranked according to the number of posts and that A2k would be steril with out rankings?
LarryBS- So how 'bout saying that? Maybe the #s of posts should have a color. Say a new person's post # is in red When it hits a certain # it changes until say over 1,000 when it is written in gold- Eh, it was just an idea!
Joanne- You are right. In and of itself it is NOT an accomplishment to have written the greatest number of posts on A2K. There are many members who write only a bit, but their posts are gems.
The only advantage to a newbie knowing that another member has a lot of posts is that he might figure that this was a person who "knew the ropes"!
I like the current system. I'm with LarryBS on not needing to make this place any drier than it already is.
I definitely like seeing the moderators and forum guides marked. Helps keep them honest. I do hold them to a higher standard than other members. The hidden moderators at Abuzz really p!ssed me off - a nasty East German vibe to that.
At some sites, you're attached to a certain 'rank title' based on number of postings until you reach a specific level, at which point you can choose your own 'title'. Which is fine, except most people already threw something interesting into their location. Seeing the number of posts doesn't really do much for me.
Some of the animal/bird options make me a bit nervous, as people (me included) have fairly strong feelings re feline/canine relative value etc. The current system is fun but reasonably neutral.
Larry: Don't you mean "anymore sterile than it already is"
Joanne: Some are "more equal" than others.
Phoenix: I agree.
Phoenix that is true but I guess I would like to see A2k evolve into a more subject orientated forum. Where the quality of discussion is what matters.
Most new member who find A2k on the web are pretty computer savvy and join after reviewing topics as a guest before they join and thus have already been enticed to join because of content.. I think the main draw is content and subject matter. It does not take long to figure out what's what.
But I really don't have any problem with the ranking system other than there is an implication that the current ranking system means something more than it does and that some how seniority is a factor in the value of individual responses. And it kind of bugs me because the moderators, forum guides, and webmaster are always in the top 15. But we are only there because of the date we joined - the length of time on site.
My preference would be that forum guide, moderators, and administrators not even appear in the ranking list. But I do not know who much trouble that would be for CDK to reprogram.
maxsD - yes and yes and probably (i'm guessing which of Phoenix's posts you're agreeing with)
ehBeth, Maxsdadeo & Larry- I am interested in why you all chose words like "dry" and "sterile" to describe the site. Could you explain what you meant? Also, if you two do feel that the site is "dry" and "sterile", what do you think is missing?
Hey Beth eh, there is cyber art chat tonight. Start dring lots of tea now. We miss you when you are not there.
Phoenix, i think my opinions on the dryness/sterility of the site were stated often enough when i was a forum guide (or whatever it was we were called before the title was changed).
Interesting to see that Craven has already started changing the rankings.
JoanneD - i've been drinking tea since 5:00 a.m. (one of the dogs woke me up by throwing up in the bed) - i'll either be with you guys or 'breaking the seal', by the time the cyber art chat starts.
Some call it undermoderated, others insist that it's overmoderated. You can't please everyone all the time and I've come to live with that. Any suggestions to make it better are always welcome but regarding this particular subject I'm already used to blanket ambiguity.
I haven't started changing the ranks yet. Just messing with deb's.
None of this is an accomplishment that will make the history books, but little things like that are fun and memorable to someone visiting the site. I look at it from a business standpoint - small features like that sell the site. Sterile no, a little more sterile than it has to be, yes.
What have you done to Deb and does she know and have you been bad? Off now to search for a dlowan posting.
You can be so silly CDK. I like that for Deb. Why don't you resolve the issue by giving us all a title you thinke we are worthy of. It could be fun and would give you something to do in your spare time.
