Member levels

[Veentea]

I have reached the honored status of "Senior Member", after 100 posts I think. But that is the same status as someone with 17,000 posts.

It seems to me that there should be some other title for people in the 1000s and those in the 10,000s.

Is that possible?

 

[roxcyn]

Ditto to Veentea.

 

[Loob]

Ah, but what would they be called? Super-size? Deluxe? Elderly?

 

[Veentea]

Yeah, I realize that I should have presented suggestions with my post but I didn't have any .

I'm sure there are some bright minds out there that can come up with something.

Maybe all the names could be changed to something in a category that has more levels??

 

[ewie]

I quite like the sound of Venerable Member.

 

[JamesM]

The only real difference between someone who has 100 posts here and someone who has posted 10,000 posts is really just the number of posts. There is no "seniority" based on number of posts. The difference between a junior member and a senior member is most likely his or her familiarity with the way this board operates. That's about it. Any given answer from a person with 10,000 posts carries no more weight than an answer from a person with 100 posts.

I know that I, as a moderator, am certainly grateful for the amount of time and effort that 10,000 posts represents, particularly on a board like this where the average post involves some thought and a fair number of words. It represents a labor of love. I'm not sure that a ranking system by number of posts would enhance the board in any way, however.

When it comes to discussions like this, by the way, my voice carries no more weight than yours or anyone else's. Being a moderator is more like being a member of the maintenance crew than anything else. We are members just like you. The board is owned and operated by Mike Kellogg. Ultimately he is the one who decides on any board changes.

 

[Veentea]

I see what you mean about the number of posts doesn't give you any more privileges or weight, but when I'm reading a post and look at the title and the name of the poster it would be nice/convenient to know by a title how long that poster has been around, something that represents that they know (or should know) the ropes, etc.

I know that I can see this by looking over to the right but usually I, and I guess most people, look on the left where the title, etc. are. I usually don't look at the other unless I'm wondering where the person is from or their native language.

I know this isn't very important.

 

[Valeria Mesalina]

It doesn´t matter, really.

The post count only indicates the number of entries we made (and that we have spent quite a lot of time in front of our computer typing like mad) but it´s just a number: it says nothing about the quality of our questions - or answers.

And, after all, we all began with zero posts.

 

[cuchuflete]

Because this is not a social site—though we do develop good relationships with fellow members through shared experiences in threads—the usual fluff of social boards is unimportant here. The quality of contributions determines the value we associate with a member name. Post count, and titles as a proxy for post count, may show persistence, but they don't automatically denote quality.

When I see a familiar name, and one that is normally associated with good thinking, broad knowledge, and even wit and wisdom, I don't care what title or post count goes with it. When looking at an especially good, or controversial, or not so good post by a name that is less known, I look to see the member's native language, location, and the date they began to post here. These give useful information. Titles such as "Revered, ancient and noble member" (Hi, ewie!) or "Newly arrived sage on a road to excellence" wouldn't tell me anything helpful.

Many members use the forums for a long time before they register; many register long before they first post. Thus a "Junior member" title doesn't tell me that the person doesn't yet "know the ropes", while a prolific newcomer may wear a "senior member" badge after just a few days, and still have quite a few ropes and knots to learn.

For the condensed version of all I've written, see Valeria Mesalina's first line.

 

[Tagarela]

Hi,

I think that if it to be created a system in which members are more differentiated, one should vote in the best members not by quantity, but by quality. Some people here have a great knowledge of language, of one's own or even of many other and also have an abillity to explain things well...so, perhaps when a member gets a X-number of votes, he or she would get a status of "teacher", "professor", "scholar", "nerd" , whatever member.

I myself support only a positive-vote system. I mean, not voting for "bad" members, only for the one you like, by the way, I don't think that we have really bad members here, most want to help =)

Anyway, it is only a suggestion.

Good bye.:

 

[ewie]

Oh I like nerd, Taga

I seem to recall reading that a 'ratings' system was tried a long time ago but it didn't work. Perhaps His Wholliness Mr.Flete remembers ... ?

 

[SDLX Master]

For the condensed version of all I've written, see Valeria Mesalina's first line.

I totally agree with Cuchu~. Most people register and post because they need help or because they feel like helping out the others. In either case, the postcount is nothing but stats (regardless of how everyone sees it), and about membership rank, although it would be fun if there were other options (i.e. Cuchu being granted the title "Jurassic Member" or something ), it is just not a vital issue.
Everyone remains active for a purpose, because without it, things have no meaning.

 

[Veentea]

I see what you all are saying and I have no disagreement, but I'm still wondering how having a series of titles hinder or change any of that seeing as people make whatever value judgement they are going to make when they look at the number of posts.

For me a "title" would represent the number of posts (which represents whatever it does to the reader). Name recognition, etc would be the same.

There are already levels as it is and I guess I don't really feel like a "senior member". I'm just a newbie still trying to figure out how to post right. I'm not a part any social sites so I can't speak for them nor is my suggestion based on that.

I guess in essence what I was really suggesting was having the number of posts over on the left represented by a name, since there are levels already. I think that my "level" is much more similar to a "member" than a senior member that has been serving on this board for 10,000 posts.

At anyrate, I did not mean it as a criticism at all. Just a comment about my newly acquired status and my regard for those who have been helping on this board more times than I can imagine. (Granted, every post doesn't necessarily represent help, but even a question helps the next person.)

 

[ewie]

I see what you mean about the status quo, Veentea ~ when I joined WordRef I was amazed at how quickly I went from Junior to Plain to Senior ... no more than four days as I recall it. I've no idea how difficult it would be for the administrator to extend the gaps a bit, e.g.
<100 posts: junior
100-1000 posts: member
1000> posts: senior.

 

[roxcyn]

I second the motion put forth by Veentena. Moreover I respectfully disagree with what was stated above by some other foreros. This is not a social forum? Bah! We communicate with each other, we debate with each other, we private message each other. If that's not social, I don't know what is. Moreover, you say that titles aren't important, but we have them on the forum. If that were the case, why have them in the first place? Lastly, the moderators get to use custom "titles" James uses "A la Mod", ewie uses "ermm.............oderator", Chuch says "Forero & bedel". Obviously it must matter to some on here.

However the real question is, what does the owner, Mike, have to say about this matter? Mike, it's your opinion that matters the most and I'd love to hear it (even if you disagree with me). Thank you and have a wonderful day!

 

[Maître Capello]

The only real difference between someone who has 100 posts here and someone who has posted 10,000 posts is really just the number of posts. There is no "seniority" based on number of posts.

Hi James,

I partly disagree with you. As a matter of fact, when I was only “100 posts old”, I was still learning some tricks, even some forum rules maybe (you tell me! ). It isn't before 1000 posts that I started to be fully comfortable with both the use of the forum and its customs and rules… I therefore like ewie's suggestion below.

I see what you mean about the status quo, Veentea ~ when I joined WordRef I was amazed at how quickly I went from Junior to Plain to Senior ... no more than four days as I recall it. I've no idea how difficult it would be for the administrator to extend the gaps a bit, e.g.
<100 posts: junior
100-1000 posts: member
1000> posts: senior.

On the other hand, I would not add more seniority levels, unless the titles get increasingly stupid and fun!

 

[Loob]

I second the motion put forth by Veentena. Moreover I respectfully disagree with what was stated above by some other foreros. This is not a social forum? Bah! We communicate with each other, we debate with each other, we private message each other. If that's not social, I don't know what is. Moreover, you say that titles aren't important, but we have them on the forum. If that were the case, why have them in the first place?

I think that's an excellent point. Why not abolish the Junior Member - Member - Senior Member distinction?

We can still retain post-count distinctions where necessary/useful....

 

[Revontuli]

Of course here's a social place like all forums. But not a forum where the titles are that important as Cuchuflete said.

I think a change is not necessary at all. You of course learn a lot until reaching 100 or 1000, but I agree with James. I've seen many members with 100-200 posts but well aware of forum rules, very helpful and experienced. It shouldn't be the number of posts and the titles that make the difference among members.

And let's say we changed them as Ewie suggested. Then there's a huge difference between someone with 1000 posts and 10000, still unjust. Will we call them deluxe/super-size as Loob said?

 

[Valeria Mesalina]

Count me out.

If Mike decides to change the levels, I refuse point blank to be renamed as Very Senior Forera, Ancient Contributor, Venerable Member, Super-Size Elderly, Prehistoric Mate, Plain Female on the Road to Even Plainer or whatever.

In fact the title most suited title to appear under my nick would be "careful, off-topic".

 

[Mate]

In fact the title most suited title to appear under my nick would be "careful, off-topic".

Well, that can be arranged

 

[SDLX Master]

Count me out.

If Mike decides to change the levels, I refuse point blank to be renamed as Very Senior Forera, Ancient Contributor, Venerable Member, Super-Size Elderly, Prehistoric Mate, Plain Female on the Road to Even Plainer or whatever.

In fact the title most suited title to appear under my nick would be "careful, off-topic".

See? You want a title all the same

Well, that can be arranged

LMAO

Incidentally, if members were to be given new tags, what would they be like?

 

[Valeria Mesalina]

See? You want a title all the same

No I don´t. Titles mean absolutely nothing, and post count means even less.

Mods are different; it is necessary for them to have a title, otherwise foreros would not know whom to ask for guidance.

But if Mike decided to set all our counters to zero posts Cuchuflete would still be Cuchuflete, the one we all admire and trust; and Ewie would still have his wicked sense of humour, and I would still wander off-topically wherever I went.

Originally Posted by Mateamargo
Well, that can be arranged

In fact it cannnot ha-ha!

 

[ampurdan]

It would be helpful that the title somehow reflected the member's gender: male or female, so that we don't have to go check someone's profile to know whether we have to use "he" or "she" when talking about them.

"Member" is okay, but may sound a little stiff. I like "forero" and "forera", but I don't know how other people like it. Off course, not anyone will automatically get the "-o"/"-a" thing is a gender distinction.

 

[ewie]

It would be helpful that the title somehow reflected the member's gender: male or female, so that we don't have to go check someone's profile to know whether we have to use "he" or "she" when talking about them.

... and then not always with success as some people are (curiously) reluctant to 'advertise' their gender even in their profile.

"Member" is okay, but may sound a little stiff

... care to rephrase that?

 

[ampurdan]

See, that's the problem with all that memberish thing. "She-member" must sound awful, right?

 

[Nunty]

Many women do not want to "advertise" their sex online (I will not climb up on my sex vs gender soapbox here) because they get hassled. It is unfortunate, but not unusual. I think the neutral "member" is just fine.

(And yes, "she-member" sounds atrocious!)

 

[ampurdan]

It sounds like a good reason, Nunty. It's not so big a problem picking the wrong pronoun after all.

 

[Montrose]

I am still a baby member

 

[TrentinaNE]

"She-member" must sound awful, right?

More than sounding awful, it implies that the "default" is male and that female is the "other." As does so much of the fricking' English language, but we don't need to perpetuate that even more.

Saluti,
Elisabetta

 

[ampurdan]

I did not intend to exclude "he-members". I just mentioned the "she" one because I thought it could be the most shocking of both.

Never mind, forget about it.

 

[romarsan]

I did not intend to exclude "he-members". I just mentioned the "she" one because I thought it could be the most shocking of both.

Never mind, forget about it.

I'll try to do it, I promise you that

Sorry

I agree with those who think no changes are needed on this point.

 

[Veentea]

I was amazed at how quickly I went from Junior to Plain to Senior ... no more than four days as I recall it. I've no idea how difficult it would be for the administrator to extend the gaps a bit, e.g.
<100 posts: junior
100-1000 posts: member
1000> posts: senior.

I like this idea or anything similar. The point isn't to elevate people or to make it seem as if some member's posts carry more weight, but rather to make the distinctions a little more realistic, as far as the gaps go.

But again, I didn't intend for this to be a complaint or even a very serious suggestion.

 

[speedier]

... ... care to rephrase that?

Perhaps "upright member"?

 

[tamarillorama]

Hi all - this is my very first post on WordRef and I don't know if you're still debating this topic, but anyway...

I've gained a huge amount of help and advice from this forum, but if there's one thing that's always confused and bugged me it's the 'senior' label. Some answers I've seen given by 'senior' members have been absolute nonsense (admittedly, others are brilliant). My point is: a member's number of posts is often no indication of their language ability. So wouldn't it be much better to drop the junior/senior ranking system altogether?

Just a thought.

 

[ampurdan]

Did the "senior" label lead you to think the member's answer was more reliable?

 

[swift]

Did the "senior" label lead you to think the member's answer was more reliable?

Hi Ampurdan.

I know for a fact that most members hold the Senior label as an indicator of reliability.

 

[tamarillorama]

Yep, I have to second that. I see 'senior' and think: Hey, this person knows what he/she is talking about.

 

[ampurdan]

Humm... If that is the case, perhaps removing "Senior" in member titles would be a good idea (it's just my personal opinion).

 

[Loob]

Humm... If that is the case, perhaps removing "Senior" in member titles would be a good idea (it's just my personal opinion).

I'll second that (see post 17)

 

[ampurdan]

Yes, but I think it might be still useful to tell a "Junior Member" from a "Member" at a glance. We need to be nicer to newbies.

Sure, you can know that if you pay attention to the user's postcount and join date, but if you can read it right under the username is perhaps more apparent (it's not my personal experience, though).

 

[danielfranco]

Other forums have different labels for n00bs, members, and venerated icons of forumdomness, but in reality it only indicates how long someone has been hanging around a forum actively.

I think the only label that actually indicates the "quality" of the forum member in question is the one that reads "banned."

The only change I would welcome is to have anyone from zero to one hundred posts be labeled as "new member," and then everyone else have no label whatever.

The mods can keep their modded labels, if they wish. I don't mind.

After all, look at "new member" tamarillorama, with his two posts has managed to say exactly what I just tried to say, but better and with less words, which means that my 6,000+ posts are no indication that I know better than him/her/them, right?

Toodles.

 

[Ynez]

tamarillorama said that he/she has been reading for a long time, so the conclusion was not reached from the writing of two posts.

I agree titles are good for nothing.

 

[for learning]

Hello!

I have also seen several labels in other forums of other sites. Maybe they can give some useful and interesting information, but I also think they could distract one's attention, driving a poster to spend more time around those labels than on the post itself.
I trust moderators' judgement.

 

[Veentea]

Yes, but I think it might be still useful to tell a "Junior Member" from a "Member" at a glance. ...Sure, you can know that if you pay attention to the user's postcount and join date, but if you can read it right under the username is perhaps more apparent

...change I would welcome is to have anyone from zero to one hundred posts be labeled as "new member," and then everyone else have no label whatever.

Sounds good to me.