[admin]

Hello everyone, now that ranks are live, I'm curious what everybody thinks. Whether your comments are style, title, or logistically related feel free to post them here. I'd like to collect everyone's feedback and make any changes if need be. Ranks are based on both quality and quantity of posts (more on quality titles a bit later). Post count ranks are assigned as follows:

New Member: 0 posts
Active Member: 25 posts
Workhorse: 50 posts
Guide: 100 posts
Ace: 200 posts
Heavy Hitter: 400 posts
Weldmonger: 500 posts

[Otto Nobedder]

I notice the ranking was live, first thing.

I've said before, I like the rank titles, in that none sound condescending toward junior members, as I've encountered on other forums.

I hope expansion and growth is factored in. On one forum I participate on, three or four of us have over 5000 posts over several years. Their ranking system is somewhat similar in structure, but the numbers dividing the ranks are multiplied by a factor of 4, if I recall correctly. The point I'm trying to make, is there will come a time where an average member may have 400-800 posts, and us old farts may have 3000+.

I have concerns about "quality-based" ranking. Even the fairest system I can imagine, with a "feedback bar" on each post so every member contributes to a "quality ranking" suffers from a certain amount of subjectivity, based on the user's first language vs. facility with English, for one glaring example.

I also fear quality rankings might alienate junior members, and discourage participation. People judge too easily, when invited to do so.

I'll be very interested to hear how this will be structured.

Steve S

[admin]

I notice the ranking was live, first thing.

I've said before, I like the rank titles, in that none sound condescending toward junior members, as I've encountered on other forums.

I hope expansion and growth is factored in. On one forum I participate on, three or four of us have over 5000 posts over several years. Their ranking system is somewhat similar in structure, but the numbers dividing the ranks are multiplied by a factor of 4, if I recall correctly. The point I'm trying to make, is there will come a time where an average member may have 400-800 posts, and us old farts may have 3000+.

I have concerns about "quality-based" ranking. Even the fairest system I can imagine, with a "feedback bar" on each post so every member contributes to a "quality ranking" suffers from a certain amount of subjectivity, based on the user's first language vs. facility with English, for one glaring example.

I also fear quality rankings might alienate junior members, and discourage participation. People judge too easily, when invited to do so.

I'll be very interested to hear how this will be structured.

Steve S

Excellent point. It's very easy to add and adjust more ranks as the forum grows, and it's also simple for the admins to periodically pull numbers on average post count to make sure that it's weighted appropriately. The quality piece is going to be as objective as possible. We more than likely won't be using a programmatic method (i.e. feedback bar) to assign ranks like those. More information on such ranks will be available very soon.

Thanks!

[Alexa]

Ranking seems a little repetitive ... over kill. In that the number of posts and the date of joining the forum are already part of the data supplied for each member. It makes little difference, but I would recommend not utilizing the ranking system.

Alexa

[Otto Nobedder]

Alexa has a point.

The ranking by posts is redundant; Window dressing. It is, however common enough to be almost expected and does no harm.

I still have concerns regarding a "quality" ranking system, and await an understanding of the format and process. I assume the purpose is to help new members judge who's responses to their questions are the most reliable, and I can see value in that. I suppose I'm most concerned that offense can be taken at one's "rank" when the perceived value of one's response is quantified by a "quality" status.

Steve S

[noddybrian]

I like the idea of ranks - but I'm interested how a member achieves a given rank - if it's only by number of posts or length of membership it does not really tell you much, but I don't see any fair way of determining a members qualifications in any given area - it would be nice though if that was achievable - that way if you post a question, instead of receiving varied & sometimes conflicting or incorrect answers from anyone wishing to contribute ( though usually well meaning & based on that persons own experiences ) you could wait for a high ranked member to reply. ( much like using " The Pirate Bay" - if you only download torrents from an uploader with a skull- green of choice ! then you won't go far wrong )
Actually - I suppose that already works here in a way - we all just wait for Otto !

[Otto Nobedder]

Don't do that. There are too many ways to skin a cat.

I share what works for me; Your mileage may vary.

Perfect example, on the GMAW forum, a fellow posted on trouble with the "bury-rod" 6010 root method, which I absolutely prefer, and got a very well reasoned response from a "work the puddle" guy. The difference? On an 1/8" 6010 5p+, he works the puddle at 75 Amps, and I blaze it in at 105. Very different ways to arrive at the same solution.

Steve S