Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
UPPING THE POST COUNT PER TITLE
#1
OK, SO WE AS ADMINS & MODS WANT A PUBLIC OPINION FROM OUR BELOVED FELLOW MEMBERS INCLUDING THE PIONEERS.

OUR CURRENT TITLE ALLOCATION IS AS FOLLOWS:

NEWBIE BELOW 50 POSTS
JUNIOR MEMBER 50 POSTS & ABOVE
MEMBER 150 POSTS & ABOVE
SENIOR MEMBER 500 POSTS & ABOVE
SUPER SENIOR MEMBER 1000 POSTS & ABOVE
ASSET MEMBER 1500 POSTS & ABOVE
SUPER ASSET MEMBER 2000 POSTS & ABOVE


WE WANT YOUR OPINION ON RAISING IT TO THE FOLLOWING:


NEWBIE 50 POSTS & ABOVE
JUNIOR MEMBER 250 POSTS & ABOVE
MEMBER 500 POSTS & ABOVE
SENIOR MEMBER 100 POSTS & ABOVE
SUPER SENIOR MEMBER 2000 POSTS & ABOVE
ASSET MEMBER 300 POSTS & ABOVE
SUPER ASSET MEMBER 5000 POSTS & ABOVE


WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THE ABOVE CHANGE. PLEASE LET US KNOW.
The only way to know how strong you are is to keep testing your limits.
Reply
#2
Maybe you could smooth out the transition from newbie through member? Seems like a pretty steep hill to climb and fairly discouraging.

Under the current tier structure I'd be senior member when reaching 500. I personally feel 1000 post's would be better actually.

Maybe something like this?

NEWBIE 50 POSTS & ABOVE
JUNIOR MEMBER 100 POSTS & ABOVE
MEMBER 200 POSTS & ABOVE
SENIOR MEMBER 1000 POSTS & ABOVE
SUPER SENIOR MEMBER 2000 POSTS & ABOVE
ASSET MEMBER 3000 POSTS & ABOVE
SUPER ASSET MEMBER 5000 POSTS & ABOVE
Reply
#3
(12-01-2020, 12:31 AM)ADMIN OF STEEL Wrote: OK, SO WE AS ADMINS & MODS WANT A PUBLIC OPINION FROM OUR BELOVED FELLOW MEMBERS INCLUDING THE PIONEERS.

OUR CURRENT TITLE ALLOCATION IS AS FOLLOWS:

NEWBIE BELOW 50 POSTS
JUNIOR MEMBER 50 POSTS & ABOVE
MEMBER 150 POSTS & ABOVE
SENIOR MEMBER 500 POSTS & ABOVE
SUPER SENIOR MEMBER 1000 POSTS & ABOVE
ASSET MEMBER 1500 POSTS & ABOVE
SUPER ASSET MEMBER 2000 POSTS & ABOVE


WE WANT YOUR OPINION ON RAISING IT TO THE FOLLOWING:


NEWBIE 50 POSTS & ABOVE
JUNIOR MEMBER 250 POSTS & ABOVE
MEMBER 500 POSTS & ABOVE
SENIOR MEMBER 100 POSTS & ABOVE
SUPER SENIOR MEMBER 2000 POSTS & ABOVE
ASSET MEMBER 300 POSTS & ABOVE
SUPER ASSET MEMBER 5000 POSTS & ABOVE


WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THE ABOVE CHANGE. PLEASE LET US KNOW.

What’s the goal? Are too many people getting access to restricted areas?

A couple of points about the new titles...
What is a 0-50 member called if you need 50 posts and above to be a Newbie?
Senior Member and Asset Member numbers are missing a 0.

I like Mr. Hind’s proposal except change Newbie to 99 posts and below.
Reply
#4
Maybe 0 - 50 is

"ON TRIAL"   or  

"SORTA KINDA MEMBER" or

"WANNA BE MEMBER"


Just sayin...


Ice
A True Friend
Freely Advises,
Justly Assists Readily,
Adventures Boldly,
Takes all Patiently,
Defends Courageously
And
Continues a Friend Unchangeably.

William Penn

[Image: rO7eOwh.jpg]
Reply
#5
Hmmmmm....
As a "Junior Member" with 61 posts under my belt, I'm content to work my way toward either 100 or 150 posts to earn my Member status..... But 50 to 250 seems fairly daunting, keeping in mind that posts should ideally be relevant. Anyone can fire off 5 "junk" posts a day, but ugh. Concerned that the increased requirements might spawn an increase in posting but not necessarily an increase in meaningful data being shared.....
Just my 2 cents!
Reply
#6
Ok, I hate to be ornery about this, but I see most of the members post. If we up the numbers that high now, we shall be inundated with stupid posts so they can get in five every 24 hours.

I know many are ill now and may not be able to make five hundred posts to see the restricted area.

It may be imperative cuz we did want a higher post count for the restricted area. Many of us whom have been here for years have the posts. But i worry about the members whom come by when they need to. Consider themselves to be family. And then we kick them to the curb for not having five hundred. STAT.

But it is a goal we can work toward. Just saying, if this passes, It is out of my hands. You will need five hundred to see restricted area. We shall have a busy bee forum, I tell u what.

Every old thread will be posted in. But that is my thought on this. Would this prevent vendors from being hacked? Probably, but some vendors won't be seen for a long long time.

Just my opinion.
Angel  It is Well with My Soul  Angel
Reply
#7
Well, That's all nothing but a General Revision of suggestions and we ain't gonna take a single step without our members consent. The members with below 50 are only Registered Members. They earn no Title till they cross that segment. As for vendors, Yes, we do care about making them secure and safer each day. We have witnessed a lot of unwanted access and attention towards our vendors. But like i said we stick with the majority. Smile
The only way to know how strong you are is to keep testing your limits.
Reply
#8
Charon is correct. I see a lot of rather useless posts from newbies just to reach the magic numbers. Can't blame them but gets old and more work for the Admins who must read them. Obviously threads take more effort, but generate new discussions which we can always use! Maybe that could be a component? Just a thought. I think things are OK as they are but if changes Must be made, I think Mr.Hind and Levi are near a possible compromise. Just my 2 cents-FF
Reply
#9
I find it a little depressing. I understand that people's postings are the only way we can get to know them, and having them jump through hoops does at least tell you that they are capable of following instructions (eventually. I made mistakes myself when I started). It's great to see people get started, but as Charon points out, you have to be willing to put up with posts that are made solely to bring up someone's post count, and they inevitably seem to be the "less interesting" posts, as it begs people to trade off quality of posts for quantity.

I don't have a good solution for this. I don't know of a quicker way to establish the kind of trust we need to build to keep vendors and clients safe on this forum. Reputation takes ages to build at the best of times. And while I'm tempted to say that admission to 'higher levels' should probably be based on reputation scores, this too is fraught with problems e.g.; who does the ratings?. With no objective criteria, the results will be unpredictable and subject to opinion. Counting posts at least has the advantage that it's an objective, clearly defined goal, though I imagine that it is still a significant burden to administer.

So my question is this: Will you trust someone more after they have made 250 posts, than if they've only made 150? How much more? Will we trust them 1.5 times as much because they have made 1.5 times as many postings? Will that result in fewer problems between clients and vendors? How many fewer? Enough to justify the extra effort involved in requiring the extra posts to be made in the first place, and then checked for content by admins?

These are difficult questions to answer, but in these data driven times, you are supposed to have this kind of data so you aren't flying completely blind. Without it, the best you can hope for is inspired guesswork. If we're going with inspired guesswork, I'd still like to see a statement of what problem these changes are designed to address, and by extension, what the rationale is for the new numbers and why they solve it. (Why yes, I am an engineer. What made you ask?). I assume that raising post requirements will slow down advance through the ranks. Is that a goal or a side-effect?

I will just add that personally, as a junior member, only half way towards my 150, who refuses to junk post just for the sake of the numbers, it will take me quite a while to make 150, and it will be a challenge. 250 seems almost punitive. As it stands, I already have to take it on faith that reaching 150 is worth the trouble (Reaching 50 certainly was). 

I agree with whomever above said that the current numbers seem quite daunting enough for those of us with modest post counts who post slowly. 

Just my 2 cents, from a loudmouth in the lower ranks.

Benny
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)