No longer in the "Big Leagues"

[BC_chick]

What's been going on around here? I don't come around for a week and all of a sudden it feels like a whole new forum. I see August already touched on the automatic editing thing... but what happened to my status, I'm no longer in the "Big Leagues."

[jdobbin]

What's been going on around here? I don't come around for a week and all of a sudden it feels like a whole new forum. I see August already touched on the automatic editing thing... but what happened to my status, I'm no longer in the "Big Leagues."

I think you are relegated to the kids table. heh

[Greg]

What's been going on around here? I don't come around for a week and all of a sudden it feels like a whole new forum. I see August already touched on the automatic editing thing... but what happened to my status, I'm no longer in the "Big Leagues."

I'm in the middle of preparing the forum for migration to the new content management system. This means I'm going to be making small changes to certain functions of the forums to ensure everything is working smoothly.

The change to the forum "groups" was made to reflect the fact that nearly everyone was in the "Big League" group. These rankings were created years ago when 1000 postings was an achievement - nowadays, nearly everybody was in the big leagues.

I've made the following changes to the rankings:

New Member - 1 Post

Junior Member - 250 Posts

Full Member - 1000 Posts

Senior Member - 5000 Posts

I apologize, I should have mentioned something before I made this change. If this is a huge deal, I will change it back. However, I think this new ranking/groups system is more reflective of the participation of the members in the forums.

Also, don't blame Charles for these types of things - Charles is a moderator, not the administrator - he has nothing to do with these changes.

Thanks,

[M.Dancer]

Ummm....what's a content management system?

[Greg]

Ummm....what's a content management system?

It is a system that allows me to better managed the mountains of content that we produce and publish. It also helps me manage the various writers and editors that contribute to Maple Leaf Web.

Obviously moving 3000 + subpages of content into a content management system, along with completely redesigning the site, can take some time and we've been at it for about a year.

If you're interested, we will be using Drupal for managing the content. We have no plans to change the forums, except for moving them into the new design.

Feel free to ask more questions if you have any,

[stignasty]

I've made the following changes to the rankings:

New Member - 1 Post

Junior Member - 250 Posts

Full Member - 1000 Posts

Senior Member - 5000 Posts

In the 1980s the U of L's Faculty of Management had a policy where the grades for all courses were put on the curve. This meant there was a terrible rate of attrition. Each class had to have a certain number of "Fs." By fourth year most classes had around 15 students in them. In one fourth year management class the prof had structured the course where group work and essays made up the bulk of the mark. The remaining mark (I think it was about 20%) was given for class participation. Since all of the students had made it that far, it was safe to assume that they could all write a pretty good essay, and the group work would mean each student was getting the same mark as four others in the class. That left class participation to separate the A students from the F students. As a result of this attempt to foster an environment of class discussion, there was a huge amount of bullshit in that class. People would open their mouths to say idiotic things, simply for the recognition of having participated.

I got an A in that class.

Edited July 11, 2007 by stignasty

[RB]

I've made the following changes to the rankings:

New Member - 1 Post

Junior Member - 250 Posts

Full Member - 1000 Posts

Senior Member - 5000 Posts

the way I am posting 5 years plus another 2 years makes me a full member, next 30 years I join the ranks of senior ... COOL

Edited July 11, 2007 by RB

[capricorn]

Big league, small league....I don't care one way or another. I wouldn't even care if my number of posts was not shown. It's the quality of the content of the posts that matter. No?

[Canuck E Stan]

New Member - 1 Post

Junior Member - 250 Posts

Full Member - 1000 Posts

Senior Member - 5000 Posts

I apologize, I should have mentioned something before I made this change. If this is a huge deal, I will change it back. However, I think this new ranking/groups system is more reflective of the participation of the members in the forums.

Thanks,

Greg,

okay by me,just add on more to your list

Retired Member-10000 Posts

-CES

[Remiel]

Would it be possible to award the title levels based on both length of membership and post count? Say, for instance:

Junior Member: 250-999 Posts, 6+ Month Membership

Full Member: 1000-4999 Posts, 1+ Year Membership

Senior Member: 5000+ Posts, 2+ Year Membership

That, or perhaps it would be better to just dispense with groups based on posts or length of membership all together.

[kimmy]

What a bunch of crybabies!

Since when is the amount of time you've wasted in Cyberspace anything to BRAG about?

Since member title is an editable field, I see little reason for concern. Move along.

-k

[BC_chick]

Greg,

My status doesn't fit into any of those categories, I'm neither a Junior member nor a Full-member... just a "member." And I wasn't "blaming" anyone.... just figured he came on, changes happened... there must be a correlation. I think you must have misinterpreted my tone.

Also... IMHO a member's status should reflect the number of posts/day instead of how many posts someone has under their belt. We can see right there in the side-bar profile how many posts they have - it's how often they post that shows how serious they are on this forum.

[Canuck E Stan]

..... it's how often they post that shows how serious they are on this forum.

.......how often they post shows how serious they are on this forum? You're joking,right?

[BC_chick]

..... it's how often they post that shows how serious they are on this forum.

.......how often they post shows how serious they are on this forum? You're joking,right?

Serious about their forum activities, not necessarily the content of their posts.

[Canuck E Stan]

Serious about their forum activities, not necessarily the content of their posts.

Serious only in placing too much importance to what they think, that it requires spending so much time blogging their opinions all day long on this forum.

[Mad_Michael]

... it's how often they post that shows how serious they are on this forum.

Your definition suggests that the most fanatical trolls are the most serious posters.

As a general rule of discussion forums, anyone on the top-ten poster list isn't pleasant to discuss anything with.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Mad_Michael

[BC_chick]

... it's how often they post that shows how serious they are on this forum.

Your definition suggests that the most fanatical trolls are the most serious posters.

As a general rule of discussion forums, anyone on the top-ten poster list isn't pleasant to discuss anything with.

They may not be pleasant to discuss things with, but they're not necessarily trolls either. A troll is someone who posts just to flame, even if they don't believe in what they're saying. Look at the top-ten poster list... only a couple fit into that category. Many of the rest do have convictions - even if they lack civility in carrying out their argument.

I don't know, I think my suggestion has been severely misinterpreted here. All I'm saying is that we can see the number of posts someone has under their belt in the side-bar - therefore we should have other qualifiers in what makes a "senior" member.

I would also argue that frequency doesn't correlate with trollish behaviour any more than quantity. The only way to determine that is by the use of "find member's posts."

[Canuck E Stan]

All I'm saying is that we can see the number of posts someone has under their belt in the side-bar - therefore we should have other qualifiers in what makes a "senior" member.

Why even have the post numbers at all? It doesn't mean anything relative to arguing or discussing on the forum.

The date of joining is sufficient as is the member's number.

Being able to post day and night 24/7/365 doesn't mean anything on this forum.

Also placing a tag on levels of senoirity based on anything is juvenile and should be discarded altogether.

Kimmy and RB are right.

[BC_chick]

Being able to post day and night 24/7/365 doesn't mean anything on this forum.

I said frequency doesn't correlate with seriousness, I don't understand why you keep reading that as me saying there is a positive correlation where frequency does imply a level of seriousness. I don't know how many different ways I can say this, let's try this...

Frequent posters can be serious or they can be trolls. The least frequent posters are also sometimes serious, sometimes trolls. The exact thing can be said about the number posts a poster has. As such, neither quantity nor frequency correlate with seriousness of a poster.

Therefore, if

1) There is no correlation between quantity and frequency of a poster with their level of seriousness, and

2) I can already see how many posts a person has in the side-bar....

I'd rather have another piece of information about that person available to me in the side bar as membership "category" (ie frequency of a poster's activity) since I can already see the quantity of their posts right below their name.

If you still don't understand what I'm saying, I give up.

Edited July 13, 2007 by BC_chick

[Canuck E Stan]

Also... IMHO a member's status should reflect the number of posts/day instead of how many posts someone has under their belt. We can see right there in the side-bar profile how many posts they have - it's how often they post that shows how serious they are on this forum.

You can't have one without the other.

[geoffrey]

1) There is no correlation between quantity and frequency of a poster with their level of seriousness,

I disagree. Looking at the top 10 posters, I find a great deal of quality. Whether correlation=causation in this instance is up for debate, I think that there is definitely correlation on this forum between number of posts and commitment to quality.

2) I can already see how many posts a person has in the side-bar....

This is the better point. Why have groups? It's silly IMO.

[BC_chick]

I disagree. Looking at the top 10 posters, I find a great deal of quality. Whether correlation=causation in this instance is up for debate, I think that there is definitely correlation on this forum between number of posts and commitment to quality.

So? There are also a lot of posters who post very infrequently who nonetheless display the same level of quality when they do post. Likewise, amongst those who rarely post there are also serious posters as well as trolls. That's my point - how often someone posts is not an indicator of how serious they are.

PS - Canuck - once again, don't confuse serious about the forum with serious about the topic k?

[BC_chick]

Also... IMHO a member's status should reflect the number of posts/day instead of how many posts someone has under their belt. We can see right there in the side-bar profile how many posts they have - it's how often they post that shows how serious they are on this forum.

You can't have one without the other.

Post 14 already addressed this. Sorry about the difficulties....

[jazzer]

There are also a lot of posters who post very infrequently who nonetheless display the same level of quality when they do post. Likewise, amongst those who rarely post there are also serious posters as well as trolls. That's my point - how often someone posts is not an indicator of how serious they are.

I tend not to post because of all the insults hurled around, particularly against anyone opposing Government, either in Canada or the U.S. And heaven forbid if one speaks out against the war. So when the bullys leave the schoolyard, this might be a decent place for discourse.

[White Doors]

My god.. It is true. People WILL whine and complain about absolutely everything.

unbelieveable.