Revamping the rank system. Again | Bitcointalksearch.org

azguard

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1001

Crypto-News.net: News from Crypto World

Quote from: deisik on October 13, 2016, 02:39:11 AM

Quote from: Jet Cash on October 12, 2016, 11:13:33 PM

Won't this just create more spamming by members who don't want to get demoted

Personally, I don't think that reduction in rank is a good idea either

Quote from: Jet Cash on October 12, 2016, 11:13:33 PM

I think it would be better if posts in certain threads and boards were not counted. Gambling for example. Also posts in threads with more than (say) 200 replies could be ignored. This may reduce the bumping of tired old threads that clutter some boards.

This doesn't feel quite right since instead of a number of posts made on the forum, we would essentially have a number of posts made in specific boards. Bumping old threads could be prevented by locking them, but this wouldn't in the least prevent from creating new ones. We already have two multi page threads about Gold vs Bitcoin in the Economics section, totally useless each. In fact, not counting posts in them would only lead to creating more such threads

about tread that is something different you will always have 2 that are same or similar with topic this can be reduced yes
in gambling you have something completely different most are based on sport and certain league so this is hard
on other section i dont know how it is i didnt see but the fact is for this is will take time for it

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Jet Cash on October 12, 2016, 11:13:33 PM

Won't this just create more spamming by members who don't want to get demoted

Personally, I don't think that reduction in rank is a good idea either

Quote from: Jet Cash on October 12, 2016, 11:13:33 PM

I think it would be better if posts in certain threads and boards were not counted. Gambling for example. Also posts in threads with more than (say) 200 replies could be ignored. This may reduce the bumping of tired old threads that clutter some boards.

This doesn't feel quite right since instead of a number of posts made on the forum, we would essentially have a number of posts made in specific boards. Bumping old threads could be prevented by locking them, but this wouldn't in the least prevent from creating new ones. We already have two multi page threads about Gold vs Bitcoin in the Economics section, totally useless each. In fact, not counting posts in them would only lead to creating more such threads

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2814

Merit: 2472

https://JetCash.com

Won't this just create more spamming by members who don't want to get demoted.

I think it would be better if posts in certain threads and boards were not counted. Gambling for example. Also posts in threads with more than (say) 200 replies could be ignored. This may reduce the bumping of tired old threads that clutter some boards.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: botany on October 11, 2016, 08:45:41 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 10, 2016, 09:11:40 AM

I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyways, we are all essentially in the same boat, not just new or low-ranked users

As the activity levels required for different ranks keep getting higher, people who attain them at a later point of time will spend more time in each level. Again it all boils down to how gradual the increase in activity levels for attaining a particular level is.

Yes, that is the whole idea behind my proposal. And people with higher ranks will spend even more time till reaching the next rank. In fact, this is how the ranking system works right now. For example, to reach a Hero member rank you will need twice as much time than for reaching a Senior member rank, from a preceding rank. The new system simply extends these times. The question is whether this extension should be made slow but indefinite (permanent) or somewhat less slow but with a fixed limit in respect to activity requirements (say, 960 for a new Hero member)...

Personally, I would go for the first option

botany

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1064

Quote from: deisik on October 10, 2016, 09:11:40 AM

I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyways, we are all essentially in the same boat, not just new or low-ranked users

As the activity levels required for different ranks keep getting higher, people who attain them at a later point of time will spend more time in each level. Again it all boils down to how gradual the increase in activity levels for attaining a particular level is.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: deisik on October 09, 2016, 11:16:12 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Actually this is great idea, but it would confuse signature campaign user and manager in many ways.
If signature campaign never exist, i think not many people would care about rank as long as they're member or above Roll Eyes

Could you please specify at least one way in which signature campaign managers might get confused? The whole idea of this proposal is to keep users tied to their current rank for a longer period of time (thereby making fewer promotions to a higher rank per unit of time). If the users don't get "downgraded" to a lower rank, there shouldn't be a single issue in this respect...

In fact, it would most certainly contribute to less confusion, if there is any at all

I don't know if this actually can confuse signature campaign managers or give them disanvatage, but i think these could happen :
1. Signature campaign who use system to check user rank based on activity point, unless they check it manually or directly check their rank automatically.

2. Signature campaign manager who looking for lots of member with high ranks

Both points make no sense since, for example, the Legendary rank doesn't depend on user's activity within the known range. You will see a lot of Legendary members who have less activity than me, but I am still only a Hero member (as of writing this post). On the other hand, if a campaign manager would be looking for high-ranked members, you would naturally expect him to look at their current rank, not their activity

Quote from: ?? on ??

Also, i think new user/user with low rank might think this idea give them disadvantage, especially if they want to join signature campaign.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyways, we are all essentially in the same boat, not just new or low-ranked users

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: ?? on ??

Actually this is great idea, but it would confuse signature campaign user and manager in many ways.
If signature campaign never exist, i think not many people would care about rank as long as they're member or above Roll Eyes

Could you please specify at least one way in which signature campaign managers might get confused? The whole idea of this proposal is to keep users tied to their current rank for a longer period of time (thereby making fewer promotions to a higher rank per unit of time). If the users don't get "downgraded" to a lower rank, there shouldn't be a single issue in this respect...

In fact, it would most certainly contribute to less confusion, if there is any at all

botany

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1064

I like this idea. The trick lies in how gradual the increase in activity requirement for a particular rank should be.

This would also be better than creating new ranks, because it is a one-time process. Creating a new rank leads to questions on what should be the signature restrictions for that rank, the name of the rank, coins/badges, etc.
Maybe it is time to revamp the rank system along with the new forum rollout?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: deisik on October 08, 2016, 11:36:39 AM

Yeah, that seems to be another, totally unintended side effect well worth to be considered separately. I guess that minor members (lol) could even end up being demoted to a lower rank if they stay latent long enough, and demotion is not taken care of (read specifically prevented) by the forum engine...

I guess a measure could be implemented to prevent the de-ranking of users if that's desirable. However, I actually don't see that as a bad thing as long as the parameters are right (e.g. slow enough).

Quote from: deisik on October 08, 2016, 11:36:39 AM

I'm curious what other unforeseen effects such a system might have

As long as pros outweigh cons this is fine.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: RocketSingh on October 08, 2016, 11:16:53 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 04, 2016, 02:06:41 PM

I propose a different approach which consists in gradual increase in the activity level required for every rank, so that some users wouldn't end up stripped off of their current rank. For example, Hero member right now requires activity of 480. After implementing the change, it would first require 494, then 508, and up to, say, 960...

Would not people actually go ranked down in this process?

Yeah, that seems to be another, totally unintended side effect well worth to be considered separately. I guess that minor members (lol) could even end up being demoted to a lower rank if they stay latent long enough, and demotion is not taken care of (read specifically prevented) by the forum engine...

I'm curious what other unforeseen effects such a system might have

Quote from: actmyname on October 08, 2016, 11:20:44 AM

If you're active, you would stay at your current rank. Isn't that more of an incentive?

Here you must run as fast as you can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast

actmyname

copper member

Activity: 2562

Merit: 2510

Spear the bees

Quote from: RocketSingh on October 08, 2016, 11:16:53 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 04, 2016, 02:06:41 PM

I propose a different approach which consists in gradual increase in the activity level required for every rank, so that some users wouldn't end up stripped off of their current rank. For example, Hero member right now requires activity of 480. After implementing the change, it would first require 494, then 508, and up to, say, 960...

Would not people actually go ranked down in this process?

Yes, provided they're inactive.

If you're active, you would stay at your current rank. Isn't that more of an incentive ?

RocketSingh

legendary

Activity: 1662

Merit: 1050

Quote from: deisik on October 04, 2016, 02:06:41 PM

I propose a different approach which consists in gradual increase in the activity level required for every rank, so that some users wouldn't end up stripped off of their current rank. For example, Hero member right now requires activity of 480. After implementing the change, it would first require 494, then 508, and up to, say, 960...

Would not people actually go ranked down in this process?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 08, 2016, 04:00:25 AM

Agree,but instead of the usual activity points earning for posts,a better system should be introduced to rank up higher.

You mean to rank up higher than legendary?

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 08, 2016, 04:00:25 AM

Here's what I can recommend.
-The user gets ranked up if he has successfully reported 500 posts with 90%+ of accuracy.

This one would actually be useful for the forum and 'mean something', ergo I concur.

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 08, 2016, 04:00:25 AM

-Have successfully busted scams and or connected more than 10 alt accounts on the forum.

I disagree with this as it would involve manual work from an admin. The first one can be automated, which is one of the reasons I agree with it.

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 08, 2016, 04:00:25 AM

-Posted more than 20 constructive comments in bitcoin technical support section.

Same reasoning as the one above. The current administration is busy as it is (even with Cyrus on board).

I think the first part of your suggestion in combination with what OP is suggesting would be a nice idea to start with.

Quote from: zahra4577 on October 08, 2016, 06:19:05 AM

Good idea but this would call for revamping the trust system first which is also very faulty

No, it would not require a revamp of the trust system.

zahra4577

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: LoyceV on October 05, 2016, 03:39:12 AM

On a side track: I really dislike seeing Hero or even Legendary members with big fat Red Trust. I'd like to suggest dropping one rank for each Red Trust from a DT-member. If a user can't be trusted at all, he should be a Newbie, even with 1000+ Activity.

Good idea but this would call for revamping the trust system first which is also very faulty

Joel_Jantsen

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1317

Get your game girl

Quote from: deisik on October 07, 2016, 01:34:19 PM

--snipe--

Agree,but instead of the usual activity points earning for posts,a better system should be introduced to rank up higher.Here's what I can recommend.
-The user gets ranked up if he has successfully reported 500 posts with 90%+ of accuracy.
-Have successfully busted scams and or connected more than 10 alt accounts on the forum.
-Posted more than 20 constructive comments in bitcoin technical support section.

These are just a few examples! Something similar could be implemented and the ranking up process to the newly introduced level should be done manually after admis/mods are satisfied with a "xyz"user.

bitcoin revo

legendary

Activity: 1168

Merit: 1049

Quote from: digaran on October 05, 2016, 02:23:33 AM

Can I become a hero member now? if I promise to post daily for the next 6 months or so?

We should have a ranking system working like t hat.

What? That goes against what the activity ranking system is even supposed to be. Oh, so you're promising that you'll post for the next 6 months? Words mean nothing. You're someone behind an anonymous account on the Internet, dishing out rewards to people who haven't done anything to get them wouldn't be smart. That's exactly like taking out a loan for $500 to someone on the Internet and promising that you'll pay them back, $5 a day, until you've repaid them.

Don't be impatient. Realize that the reward comes after the work, and if you can't handle that then you shouldn't be handing out empty promises for things you can't achieve.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Lauda on October 07, 2016, 01:24:46 PM

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 07, 2016, 01:19:00 PM

Pardon me if I haven't understood OP's idea clearly but wouldn't it be unfair for the people who waited this long to become a hero member, only to realize that it is going to take much more longer to achieve something which was achieved by the others in a short span of time compared to them.

There is never going to be a solution to this that is "fair" for everyone. Users should not really care that much about having to wait a while longer for a particular rank, and if they are, it is likely for the wrong reasons (e.g. higher tier in signature campaigns). One could make it so that the gradual increase takes longer(e.g. which would make it like a 'transitional period'), ergo it would be a period in which the activity growth still outpaces the increase in activity required per rank. However, this would only mildly help those cases.

I don't think that it will be tremendously unfair, if at all. Look, Legendary members have already reached the highest rank in the forum member hierarchy (I don't consider special ranks like founders, donators, etc), so they are essentially out of the equation altogether. All other members will be in the same conditions, if I don't miss something. If a new rank is added, then we are all basically in the same boat. In this way, I pretty much don't see how it can be "unfair". Though it looks like there are ~~two~~ three Legends already...

But there can be only one

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on October 07, 2016, 01:19:00 PM

Pardon me if I haven't understood OP's idea clearly but wouldn't it be unfair for the people who waited this long to become a hero member, only to realize that it is going to take much more longer to achieve something which was achieved by the others in a short span of time compared to them.

There is never going to be a solution to this that is "fair" for everyone. Users should not really care that much about having to wait a while longer for a particular rank, and if they are, it is likely for the wrong reasons (e.g. higher tier in signature campaigns). One could make it so that the gradual increase takes longer(e.g. which would make it like a 'transitional period'), ergo it would be a period in which the activity growth still outpaces the increase in activity required per rank. However, this would only mildly help those cases.

Joel_Jantsen

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1317

Get your game girl

Quote from: Lauda on October 07, 2016, 01:00:52 PM

OP's idea is a good choice IMO.

Pardon me if I haven't understood OP's idea clearly but wouldn't it be unfair for the people who waited this long to become a hero member, only to realize that it is going to take much more longer to achieve something which was achieved by the others in a short span of time compared to them.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: snipie on October 07, 2016, 12:36:22 PM

we have a lot of full/senior members tho +/- hero.

Nobody claimed otherwise; this sentence is redundant.

Quote from: snipie on October 07, 2016, 12:36:22 PM

after implementation of this doubling idea we will have many legendary members but no one will care anymore since we will have a rare one just after it (mystical or whatever...) and so on

So what's the point of having such 'uniquely' named ranks when you end up with a lot of people wearing them? OP's idea is a good choice IMO.

Topic: Revamping the rank system. Again (Read 3022 times)