Member Rankings/Titles

[BEEDEE]

MODERATOR HAT OFF

Frankly, the concept of ranks determined soley on the basis of the number of posts does nothing, IMO, to the forum and has no bearing on the quality of posts made. You either like to idea or are indifferent and the posts to this thread show that polarization clearly.

There are much better ways of determining a member's standing than an automatic rank granted after a number of posts. Take a look at he post count and Join date in the top right of each post. How long they have been a member and the number of posts gives you an indication of their level of activity. Then, if you wan to know more, click on their name and look at the satistics in their profile. When were they last on line and when did they last post is an indication of an active member or a lurker.

Finally, you can bring up either all their posts or all their threads to see about the quality of the information they post. If it's a lot of welcome: messages versus a number of erudite and well thought out responses versus knee jerk reactions to a thread you can get a meaningful idea of that member's value to the forum.

I'll admit to getting upset once in my early days on the forum when a rank up was not acknowledged. But as I matured on the forum, I came to believe that awarding ranks was the forum equivalent of the Peter Principle - "people are promoted to their level of incompetance". Gaining a rank based solely onthe number of posts is no diffeernat to getting promoted based on the amount of time you have spent in a job. It says NOTHING about you.

And with that said I will Put my moderator hat back on

As far as titles are concerned - Kilted Legend, Forum Historain, etc I do believe there is a place for titles that are earned for service to the forum and bestowed approriately. Right now, with all the activity associated with the site skin change we don't have time to give this matter full attention, but rest assured it is on our 'to do' list.

I do have one other concern with this thread. Reasonalble dialog and differences of opinion are one thing. But when members start to attack other members views with personal comments we, as moderators, WILL step in. Tthere have already been posts on this thread reported and we will continue to monitor the threads.

It is not for nothing we consider ourselves the Ladies and Gentlemen of XMTS and expect behaviour appropriate to that sentiment.

Brian



Brian

[piperdown]

well, be this as it all may be....I also mentioned that there is great value here...dont forget to read those bits. I am certainly not here to make waves..just trying to find out if there is truth to the popular consensus. Everything I stated was based on the premise that this is a forum, and not the basement of the Kremlin. I like you all, but I am above parental admonishments.

I've been sitting here with my morning coffee (choking on it) reading this thread.

Whether it be the White House,a school room or the Kremlin, someone IS in charge and does make the final decisions however popular or not.
Steve has a vision and he is the owner of this forum. Give him a chance to introduce these changes and see where his vision takes it. I can't believe some of the comments put forth simply because the colour is grey now or a "title" is removed.
Is that what this forum is about?? Sure, they were funny and not everyone agrees with the removal but let the owner work out the kinks and see where it takes us.
I have a small quote that is kept on my office wall at work that I remind myself of frequently(otherwise I would go crazy)...

" I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE KEY TO SUCCESS IS BUT I DO KNOW THE KEY TO FAILURE IS TRYING TO PLEASE EVERYONE"

Give it a chance before all the harsh criticism....

[beloitpiper]

I think we can all agree that the worst change to the forum is that Nanook hasn't been on in almost a year! Where is that crazy know-it-all? I miss his inane ramblings and self-righteous, pseudo-encyclopedic "knowledge".

[thescot]

Post deleted by author

[Colin]

There are much better ways of determining a member's standing than an automatic rank granted after a number of posts. Take a look at he post count and Join date in the top right of each post. How long they have been a member and the number of posts gives you an indication of their level of activity.

Brian, well put, but I am going to have to disagree with looking at the post count. I know several with high post counts that have added very little knowledge, input, or anything past "Way to go!" or "good on ya!" I don't care about the rankings or the titles, except the ones that were voted on by the moderators (as is the "new" policy) and given to the people we felt really added to the forum and lead by example. It's never hard to know who the blowhards are, and who the knowledgeable people are.

I still say too much emphasis is put on the number of posts and the number of kilts one owns. Neither dictates your knowledge or what one brings to the table. If the titles, the rewarded titles are to be removed than you guys really do need to get rid of the "number of kilts" and post count. Otherwise you have only taken out one aspect, but not gotten rid of the problem

[okiwen]

She is one of the main reasons I am here and check back regularly.

I am here to learn to make and wear the kilt as a part of my life as a piper and so on. I don't think I have ever seen hear get in a spat with anyone.

The rest means little to me, but if it means a bunch to others, what the harm?

[Semiomniscient]

It seems a great shame, and smacks of an insult, to drop some of the more descriptive honourific titles. Some folks went to a great effort to establish their "bona fides" as it were, and I really hope Steve, that you thought long and hard how some people might feel after losing a title that might draw attention to their knowledge and research. I fail to see the harm in leaving these titles up. The rankings mean very little to me, but the titles are another matter. Why would you choose to alienate long time members of this forum?

Best regards,
Sandford MacLean

Brian, well put, but I am going to have to disagree with looking at the post count. I know several with high post counts that have added very little knowledge, input, or anything past "Way to go!" or "good on ya!" I don't care about the rankings or the titles, except the ones that were voted on by the moderators (as is the "new" policy) and given to the people we felt really added to the forum and lead by example. It's never hard to know who the blowhards are, and who the knowledgeable people are.

I still say too much emphasis is put on the number of posts and the number of kilts one owns. Neither dictates your knowledge or what one brings to the table. If the titles, the rewarded titles are to be removed than you guys really do need to get rid of the "number of kilts" and post count. Otherwise you have only taken out one aspect, but not gotten rid of the problem

I definitely agree that number of kilts is unnecessary. That is almost more of a statement of financial wealth, which really isn't anybody's business but their own.

[KiltedPilot]

vBulletin has a built-in 'reputation system'. This allows users to, anonymously, rate the quality of other member's posts. If this debate is only about ranking quality, then this is a possible solution.

Negative reputation can cause nasty sentiment, but that can optionally be disabled.

Mike

[Tobus]

vBulletin has a built-in 'reputation system'. This allows users to, anonymously, rate the quality of other member's posts. If this debate is only about ranking quality, then this is a possible solution.

I was an admin on a forum that had that. It gets abused real quick and becomes more of a distraction than anything else. It became a way for members to "war" with one another in a passive-aggressive manner. It did nothing but drag the whole forum down.

[KiltedPilot]

The contradiction I am grappling with here is between the view that :-

1) these titles are too important to be discarded, yet
2) these titles are not important enough to have an open, transparent, documented, fully democratic process of being awarded

If honorary titles are important, why not set up a process going forward where anyone can propose a member for a title, in a dedicated sub-forum, and arrange that the award is granted once a given percentage of the members vote for it. (Using vBulletin polls).

This needn't be too formal (apart form the votes), and it might even be a lot of fun. We'd have a lot of suggestions I'm sure, and many would be hilarious. Perhaps annual awards for "2010 Best XYZ" might be included.

Such a process is then open, documented (automatically by forum posts), and democratic.

I would remark that despite following this forum closely for 6 years now, I have only the vaguest idea of the precise reason for the majority for of the honorary titles. I've sometimes searched to find the missing thread where a particular title award was proposed and discussed -- but usually found nothing. This left the unfortunate, perhaps inaccurate, impression that most were private jokes between a small clique.

It is evident that others also formed that same impression, rightly or wrongly.

If a panel is to grant titles, on behalf of the board, then members of that panel are no longer acting as administrators, but as representatives. Representatives should be elected, to ensure they are representative.

I'd have no problem award titles for good service, but would prefer to see it be more open and transparent.

My 2c worth.

Mike