Should Member Status Be Ranked Differently?

[slapshot]

Who cares how many posts someone has? Other than screening idiot vendors it is useless.

I care how many times they have led/participated in excellent trading threads. Do you?

Let's let Baron know that the post count system is misleading to newer members and let's start tracking who really participates in the sharing of relevant information.

Paul

 

[FRuiTY PeBBLe]

Who cares how many threads people start. Some of the best posters NEVER start threads.

Sorry, but this is another bad idea...along with all the other ones mentioned today.

F. P.

 

[slapshot]

Quote from FRuiTY PeBBLe:

Who cares how many threads people start. Some of the best posters NEVER start threads.

Sorry, but this is another bad idea...along with all the other ones mentioned today.

F. P.

I see you been a member since this month - that wouldn't seem like enough time on the board to pass that judgement.

1) most of the more serious active members and "best posters" start threads because they are participating, not just playing out some weird ego trip or whatever.

2) perhaps it may encourage more of the best posters to start threads.

rather than complaining, perhaps you could use your vast experience to provide a better idea.

 

[FRuiTY PeBBLe]

Quote from slapshot:

rather than complaining, perhaps you could use your vast experience to provide a better idea.

Already did:

1) I've said multiple times to just leave it as is.

2) This is NEVER going to happen, but this would be the best:

Quote from FRuiTY PeBBLe:

Member rank should be based on audited trading returns. Members could be ranked by their profitability. Rank #1 would be the most profitable trader. I'm kidding, of course. However, that would be cool though.

F. PeBBLe

3) Baron said months ago that he was thinking about implementing a system that shows how members are perceived by others. He's probably already working on something that is completely separate from post count. There are many message boards with indicators that show how others have rated them. For example, some have 1 to 5 stars under their name, etc.

FRuiTY PeBBLe

 

[okwon]

I haven't been here long, but I don't think it really matters how you rank people. If you just read enough posts, you tend to figure out who to pay attention to. I don't even pay attention to the number of posts. There have been a lot very informative posts written by junior members.

 

[slapshot]

Quote from FRuiTY PeBBLe:


Already did:

1) I've said multiple times to just leave it as is.

2) This is NEVER going to happen, but this would be the best:

3) Baron said months ago that he was thinking about implementing a system that shows how members are perceived by others. He's probably already working on something that is completely separate from post count. There are many message boards with indicators that show how others have rated them. For example, some have 1 to 5 stars under their name, etc.

FRuiTY PeBBLe

OK, that's heading down the right road at least - I was just looking for alternatives to "Super Mega Awesome Elite" status like some of the other threads/polls

Paul

 

[Pabst]

Did Chasinfla get married or something?

 

[FRuiTY PeBBLe]

Quote from Pabst:

Did Chasinfla get married or something?

He somewhat disappeared around the same time people were posting formulas to calculate the exact day he would surpass Don Bright as most active member. I think it damaged him mentally.

FRuiTY P.

 

[slapshot]

Quote from FRuiTY PeBBLe:


He somewhat disappeared around the same time people were posting formulas to calculate the exact day he would surpass Don Bright as most active member. I think it damaged him mentally.

FRuiTY P.

LOL damn funny (no offense, Chas)


Paul

 

[Pabst]

Quote from FRuiTY PeBBLe:


He somewhat disappeared around the same time people were posting formulas to calculate the exact day he would surpass Don Bright as most active member. I think it damaged him mentally.

I always felt he would burnout. So many start strong and then fade..........