|
I know I'm not exactly one of the top contributors or more active members, but I am a pretty experienced lurker.  And what I've read/heard about the most is people saying that post counts are..
- Meaningless and can be spammed.
- Does not represent quality of the poster.
- Does not represent real "veterancy" of the poster.
- Encourages some people to post nonsense.
My idea is to have some sort of veteran level system like this:
http://vilegaming.com/users.x/veterans
Obviously TL would have to use a different system/formula. And from what I can deduce, the only worthy factors for a formula would be join date, post count, and average posts per week. I'd say use weekly average and not daily because it more accurately represents the users activity. I can't really think of a good formula just yet, but it's just a general idea.
I think GG.net has some kind of system like this, too. As do a bunch of other popular sites. SCL.com hides post counts altogether and just has the typical "X posts = X rank" deal.
Anyhow, I was just thinking out loud and know my idea isn't going to happen, nor does the staff have time for it.
Respected
|
I don't think TL.net needs that kind of system. I think Tl.net just resorts on, KNOWING who is a veteran and who isn't by following TL.net as a whole itself. Everyone knows who's been around and who hasn't. Dunno just sounds a bit worthless to me. My 2 cents.
Premium, Respected
|
Another link to your site I see...
Ranks are fine IMO, don't fix what's not broken.
Premium, Respected
|
Yep, because "advertising" my site in a hidden forum section is the way to go.
Respected
|
I call advertising nonetheless.
On December 16 2009 17:22 Spartan wrote: Obviously TL would have to use a different system/formula. And from what I can deduce, the only worthy factors for a formula would be join date, post count, and average posts per week. I'd say use weekly average and not daily because it more accurately represents the users activity. I can't really think of a good formula just yet, but it's just a general idea.
This shows you didnt put too much thought into your post, and it's just some random blabling: the only difference between "average posts per day" and "average posts per week" is a multiplication factor of 7, that's why they are called "average".
On December 16 2009 17:22 Spartan wrote: Anyhow, I was just thinking out loud and know my idea isn't going to happen, nor does the staff have time for it.
This is almost a passive-agressive note, as you imply that this system you suggest (not like you suggest any actual system, again...) is clearly better than the current one, and the only reason it wont get implemented here is because the staff doesnt have time for it? Well: no.
Regular
|
On December 16 2009 19:20 538 wrote:
I call advertising nonetheless.
So posting a link of an image hosted on Tinypic.com, or posting a link to a Digg.com article, or posting a link to a replay hosted on Repdepot.net. Those are advertising also and they should be dealt with the same way? I'm not trying to start an argument here, but clearly you are. Just back off, plzkthx.
On December 16 2009 19:20 538 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2009 17:22 Spartan wrote: Obviously TL would have to use a different system/formula. And from what I can deduce, the only worthy factors for a formula would be join date, post count, and average posts per week. I'd say use weekly average and not daily because it more accurately represents the users activity. I can't really think of a good formula just yet, but it's just a general idea. This shows you didnt put too much thought into your post, and it's just some random blabling: the only difference between "average posts per day" and "average posts per week" is a multiplication factor of 7, that's why they are called "average". On December 16 2009 17:22 Spartan wrote: Anyhow, I was just thinking out loud and know my idea isn't going to happen, nor does the staff have time for it.
This is almost a passive-agressive note, as you imply that this system you suggest (not like you suggest any actual system, again...) is clearly better than the current one, and the only reason it wont get implemented here is because the staff doesnt have time for it? Well: no.[/QUOTE]
This is an aggressive post. I never said it was better. I was just saying it could be better. And yes they're different. And I said the staff wouldn't implement it because they've said dozens of times that they have plenty of other things to work on, but it still doesn't hurt to throw out ideas.
Respected
|
Zurich15366 Posts
There has been a lot of discussion about this in the past. While post count is obviously flawed, there is just no way to determine veterans and contributors that isn't equally wrong. Join date doesn't have to mean anything, neither does average post count. For every figure or system you can come up with you will find a lot of top posters and contributors on these forums that still won't be recognized as such.
The reason we are sticking with post count is that there is no better system in sight and people are so used to it.
ALERT: GERMAN
|
a) Registered 45 days, 10 posts per day/week. --> Points = 450
b) Registered 90 days, 5 posts per day/week. --> Points = 450
c) Registered 180 days, 20 posts per day/week. --> Points = 3600
d) Registered 265 days, 5 posts per day/week. --> Points = 1325
e) Registered 730, 2 posts per day/week. --> Points = 1460
User C should be the highest level. He's been the most active and not necessarily one of the oldest members.
I guess the main flaw here is that it can fluctuate. A user that was high a year ago, but stops posting for a long time, would drop down because of their average. So yea, there's the flaw.. it kinda forgets about old posters that were great back in their day. o_O
There could also be some sort of bonus factor into play. Where staff could hand out extra points to users that contribute. Or every time someone posts a thread that gets a lot of activity they would get like 100 points. The extra points of course wouldn't go away and are added on top of the registered/average values.
Complicated.
Respected
|
Braavos36401 Posts
I implemented this system for this thread only... looks pretty accurate.
SuperAwesome, Trusted, Premium, Respected
|
Zurich15366 Posts
Seems to work fine if you ask me - let's keep it.
ALERT: GERMAN
|
Norway28864 Posts
|
Sweden33719 Posts
+1 in favour of keeping the German alert. Need to add a Romanian warning as well.
Though really, it should probably be:
ACHTUNG: GERMAN
|
LOL! I gotta admit that's hilarious, haha.
|
MrHoon
10183 Posts
|
hahaha
german alert is brilliant
and for the record, the current system is ok
sure for beginners just looking at the post count of someone and they'll get a fairly good sense of who is a regular around here
ofc there's those posters who are brilliant or awesome without a lot of posts, think like MDT etc,but there's the star system for that. And then the special icons for the .. everything pretty much, graphics, tlwiki, death, and so on.
then u can look at poster name color......actually it's already a pretty complicated system, you just have to know where to look. i guess if u were to condense it, you can just put "if red/bob=staff, if star/custom icon/ custom color = awesome, if posts > x, veteran, else if regular" but really whats the point?
|
|
|
United States20255 Posts
TL Mods already said they have a system that they have never fully revealed. The system we have now is fine imo because its not based 100% on post count, its kind of like post count + the knowledge of the community of that person and his posts/contributions. Not like Fakesteve suddenly became nothing when his post count got reset. But the system in this thread is classic
|
Kau
Canada3502 Posts
Can I get this rank? Unfortunately I am not a German so I can't get the flashy blinky one.
Puny
|
Netherlands19141 Posts
If it ain't Dutch it ain't much anyway!
|
United States3824 Posts
I think that rank should be based on how many chick's faces you come on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
