Ranks?

[Kasynlie]

How do you feel about ranks? Should they be based on post count, quality of posts, or service length?



I feel that ranks should be earned through quality posting. I mean it's not hard to get to the top rank if all you do is post one or two words in each thread a few times. New members look up to the higher ranked, and what is there to look up to if the highly ranked are making 'cheap' posts (ie. not valuable to the community).



So basically, members need to be promoted like in the military - they need to show their obedience and worth in the community to be promoted.





Opinions?

 

[Evil Eye]

They should look at join date versus post count to figure out whether or not to look up you

Can I have a forum gamer rank now?

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Despite the ranks, people tend to look up to anyone who has a lot of posts.

 

[Kasynlie]

Despite the ranks, people tend to look up to anyone who has a lot of posts.

Then why not just hide everyone's post count? Why does post count matter anyway?

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Part of the fun of forums is making a lot of posts and rising through the ranks.

 

[Kasynlie]

But that's the thing. Ranks shouldn't be determined on the number of posts, rather the quality of posts.

 

[Randy]

But that's the thing. Ranks shouldn't be determined on the number of posts, rather the quality of posts.

Who died and made you king of how things should be on forums?

 

[Kasynlie]

Who died and made you king of how things should be on forums?

Nobody died. I was expressing my opinion...

 

[Randy]

Nobody died. I was expressing my opinion...

Are you hitting me?

 

[Evil Eye]

Part of the fun of forums is making a lot of posts and rising through the ranks.

Post count's there to see how fast you can post... notice how I made almost 300 posts today?

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Post count's there to see how fast you can post... notice how I made almost 300 posts today?

Hmm. Nah I dont think thats what they are there for.

 

[Evil Eye]

Hmm. Nah I dont think thats what they are there for.

No?

 

[Kingmush]

The problem with making ranks based on quality of posts rather than quantity is the problem of how to accurately judge that. It's near impossible and can be quite a hassle (if you have a decent number of members to keep up with).



Now for my forum we do our ranks differently. Pretty much we have a set of ranks that vary from Gamer to Artist, etc. etc. The different ranks reflect various topics and any member at any post count can pick one of those membergroups. Therefore you can have a brand new member with the same rank as the top poster. Now we do still show post count (and date joined) but I don't think people really look at that (on my forum at least).

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

I should make a forum gamer rank image. There is a couple here who seem to post there more than anywhere else.

 

[Ashley]

We don't have specific ranks on CT. I for one am not really fussy about what ranks I or anyone else has, to be honest. As for the amount of posts, I don't know how to answer that one.

 

[Evil Eye]

I should make a forum gamer rank image. There is a couple here who seem to post there more than anywhere else.

Thank you, dice please

 

[Naviero X]

I think how long you've been on the forum + the number of posts over a certain word count could be a good way of judging ranks. In the big picture, it's just a trivial feature on a forum. So it's there for fun.