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.

snipie

legendary

Activity: 3178

Merit: 1140

#SWGT CERTIK Audited

Quote from: Lauda on October 04, 2016, 03:44:42 PM

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 04, 2016, 02:13:46 PM

The ranks should just follow the existing pattern of doubling the activity each time. Legendary should be made achievable at 960 then the next rank at 1920 and so on.

I see this problematic in the long run as you end up having a lot of people labeled in a specific rank that is supposed to be *rare*, e.g. legendary (note: How long this is going to take is debatable).

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

airezx20

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

I also like the idea that introducing more rank after the legendary would be good.The reason why i am saying this because as the time will increase we will see more and more members becoming legendary.Not many right now because forum that too old.But with time alot of hero members would become legendary and it would keep happening and for those who are already legendary right now wont have any progress.In 1-2 years may be i would also become a legendary and those who are legendary at this time will stay the same.But that would be unfare on them.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: actmyname on October 07, 2016, 09:52:12 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 04, 2016, 03:28:19 PM

If we decide to keep the existing schedule of increasing the activity by 14 points every other week, we would only need to increase the activity threshold for higher ranks more often (or rather less often for lower ranks). For example, incrementing the activity level required for a Senior Member by 14 would in this case require 4 weeks, within which the threshold for reaching a Hero Member rank will be increased two times by 28 in total (14+14). In this way, we will have the new activity levels set to 254 and 254x2=508, or 240+14 and 480+14+14, for Senior and Hero members, respectively...

- I just started reading this thread.

Whoa, whoa. Isn't there a problem here, though?

If it takes 4 weeks to increase the Sr. Member activity requirement by 14 and we keep the "doubling" formula, wouldn't it be impossible to reach Hero Member? (Since the requirement increases as equally as the activity given to members directly).

It would be +14 to the activity requirement for Hero Members every fortnight, but that's equal to how much activity you receive.

Wouldn't it be better to just have a flat rate of adding 14 to the requirement every 4 weeks? (And as you suggested, to the cap of 2x the current requirements)

The point is not to increment the activity levels indefinitely. After reaching, for example, 960 for a Hero Member rank (480 for Sr. Member, and so forth), the system could be slowed down significantly or halted completely until the next overhaul. On the other hand, there shouldn't be a lot of issues if the activity levels get incremented in a constant but slow fashion (say, once per month) to keep up with forum aging. As I see it, the system has a lot of room for both improvement and tweaking...

But I think that the doubling pattern should be preserved

Quote from: actmyname on October 07, 2016, 09:52:12 AM

It would be +14 to the activity requirement for Hero Members every fortnight, but that's equal to how much activity you receive

That, in fact, could be a beneficial side effect. That is, no more new Hero or Legendary members for some time

actmyname

copper member

Activity: 2562

Merit: 2510

Spear the bees

Quote from: deisik on October 04, 2016, 03:28:19 PM

If we decide to keep the existing schedule of increasing the activity by 14 points every other week, we would only need to increase the activity threshold for higher ranks more often (or rather less often for lower ranks). For example, incrementing the activity level required for a Senior Member by 14 would in this case require 4 weeks, within which the threshold for reaching a Hero Member rank will be increased two times by 28 in total (14+14). In this way, we will have the new activity levels set to 254 and 254x2=508, or 240+14 and 480+14+14, for Senior and Hero members, respectively...

- I just started reading this thread.

Whoa, whoa. Isn't there a problem here, though?

If it takes 4 weeks to increase the Sr. Member activity requirement by 14 and we keep the "doubling" formula, wouldn't it be impossible to reach Hero Member? (Since the requirement increases as equally as the activity given to members directly).

It would be +14 to the activity requirement for Hero Members every fortnight, but that's equal to how much activity you receive.

Wouldn't it be better to just have a flat rate of adding 14 to the requirement every 4 weeks? (And as you suggested, to the cap of 2x the current requirements)

And now, to change the brainstormed idea.

Quote from: deisik on October 07, 2016, 09:31:36 AM

Okay, let's wait and see. I hope the changes proposed here won't be implemented before I become a Legendary Member myself. I somehow sympathize with the low-rank low-activity members who are thinking that only Legendary Members will benefit if this system of increasing activity levels (or something similar to it) starts off for real. But, on the hand, the activity level required for reaching, say, a Hero Member rank looks really ridiculous by now, so a major overhaul of the current system seems to be long due and overdue...

Your previous incremental idea is feasible, I think... But would an increase of 7 activity points to the required amount per rank be better? Older members should only notice it slightly, but this could be a way to block out farmed accounts and the flooding of (Jr.) Member scammers.

(Again, at a flat rate for each rank, instead of having the same doubling formula, otherwise ranks would be impossible to reach until the increments are capped)

Quote from: deisik on October 07, 2016, 09:31:36 AM

I'm curious who opted for being the Legend in the poll

Most likely not a legendary member.

Atomicat

legendary

Activity: 952

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Decoded on October 07, 2016, 07:07:33 AM

Quote from: justspare on October 05, 2016, 05:10:33 AM

I doubt the ranking system will ever change though. But we can all hope.

Theymos will actually listen if you're not just negative and actually suggesting something.

Quote from: btvGainer on October 05, 2016, 05:11:05 AM

What about increasing the time of updating the activity period from 14 days to 28 or 30 days?

Um... Why? Activity is meant to be 1 for every day, and 14 days is enough for a user to get back online. Simple.

I agree with you, Users who contribute to this site on a daily basis deserve to have a higher than than those who don't.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Lauda on October 05, 2016, 05:20:44 AM

Quote from: deisik on October 05, 2016, 05:08:04 AM

Ultimately, I will accept whatever it should be called provided this proposal gets accepted at all

You are right about that, and it doesn't matter much. I just wanted to point it out because it may make some people think you're suggested an instant jump (in case they don't read all the posts in the thread).

Quote from: justspare on October 05, 2016, 05:10:33 AM

I doubt the ranking system will ever change though. But we can all hope.

If you make a compelling case and suggest a noticeable improvement over the current one, I don't see why not

Okay, let's wait and see. I hope the changes proposed here won't be implemented before I become a Legendary Member myself. I somehow sympathize with the low-rank low-activity members who are thinking that only Legendary Members will benefit if this system of increasing activity levels (or something similar to it) starts off for real. But, on the hand, the activity level required for reaching, say, a Hero Member rank looks really ridiculous by now, so a major overhaul of the current system seems to be long due and overdue...

Quote from: Decoded on October 07, 2016, 07:07:33 AM

Theymos will actually listen if you're not just negative and actually suggesting something.

I'm curious who opted for being the Legend in the poll

Decoded

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1030

give me your cryptos

Quote from: justspare on October 05, 2016, 05:10:33 AM

I doubt the ranking system will ever change though. But we can all hope.

Theymos will actually listen if you're not just negative and actually suggesting something.

Quote from: btvGainer on October 05, 2016, 05:11:05 AM

What about increasing the time of updating the activity period from 14 days to 28 or 30 days?

Um... Why? Activity is meant to be 1 for every day, and 14 days is enough for a user to get back online. Simple.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: deisik on October 05, 2016, 05:08:04 AM

Ultimately, I will accept whatever it should be called provided this proposal gets accepted at all

You are right about that, and it doesn't matter much. I just wanted to point it out because it may make some people think you're suggested an instant jump (in case they don't read all the posts in the thread).

Quote from: justspare on October 05, 2016, 05:10:33 AM

I doubt the ranking system will ever change though. But we can all hope.

If you make a compelling case and suggest a noticeable improvement over the current one, I don't see why not.

Quote from: btvGainer on October 05, 2016, 05:11:05 AM

I think the current rank system is perfect and there's no need to revamp it.

Nothing is perfect, and this system is far from it.

Quote from: btvGainer on October 05, 2016, 05:11:05 AM

What about increasing the time of updating the activity period from 14 days to 28 or 30 days?

No.

btvGainer

legendary

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

I think the current rank system is perfect and there's no need to revamp it.What about increasing the time of updating the activity period from 14 days to 28 or 30 days?

justspare

hero member

Activity: 1022

Merit: 538

Quote from: deisik on October 05, 2016, 05:08:04 AM

Quote from: justspare on October 05, 2016, 04:48:01 AM

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 04, 2016, 02:13:46 PM

The ranks should just follow the existing pattern of doubling the activity each time. Legendary should be made achievable at 960 then the next rank at 1920 and so on.

Yeah I don't like the idea that some people get Legendary before other people with the same amount of activity. It should just be set at double each time. I also feel like some Legendaries don't deserve their rank and they are very unknowledgeable.

Just not liking it is not enough, you should actually get there to truly feel it in full measure

Well I know that my one word won't be enough to change the whole ranking system. I doubt the ranking system will ever change though. But we can all hope.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: justspare on October 05, 2016, 04:48:01 AM

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 04, 2016, 02:13:46 PM

The ranks should just follow the existing pattern of doubling the activity each time. Legendary should be made achievable at 960 then the next rank at 1920 and so on.

Yeah I don't like the idea that some people get Legendary before other people with the same amount of activity. It should just be set at double each time. I also feel like some Legendaries don't deserve their rank and they are very unknowledgeable.

Just not liking it is not enough, you should actually get there to truly feel it in full measure

Quote from: Lauda on October 04, 2016, 03:44:42 PM

Quote from: deisik on October 04, 2016, 03:28:19 PM

Please note that I'm talking only about increasing the activity levels required for reaching the next rank, not about the activity itself, which will get increased as per usual, i.e. every two weeks by 14 points

Progressively increasing the activity levels would probably be a more accurate description of what you're suggesting

I would still stick to gradual. Both gradual and progressive mean essentially the same thing, i.e. a steady change. But unlike the latter, the former has also a connotation of making increases in small elaborate stages or steps. The reason being that a careless increase in the activity thresholds may cause some members to lose their current rank due to the activity level required for it surpassing their current activity, which I specifically mentioned in the OP. Even if promotion to a rank was a one-way ticket, metaphorically speaking, it would still look rather strange and most likely raise a lot of confusion between members as well...

Ultimately, I will accept whatever it should be called provided this proposal gets accepted at all

justspare

hero member

Activity: 1022

Merit: 538

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 04, 2016, 02:13:46 PM

The ranks should just follow the existing pattern of doubling the activity each time. Legendary should be made achievable at 960 then the next rank at 1920 and so on.

Yeah I don't like the idea that some people get Legendary before other people with the same amount of activity. It should just be set at double each time. I also feel like some Legendaries don't deserve their rank and they are very unknowledgeable.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

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.

This is like having thousands of Legendary members sticking around the forum, only in reverse order (but still negative in respect to forum reputation). How can someone possibly be a newbie if he has been active for many years in the forum? The latter is as discrediting as the former, though in a different way. And what should the staff do if all accusations have been removed or otherwise invalidated? To raise his rank to Hero or Legendary again?

Trust is trust while activity is activity (bad or good), and they shouldn't be mixed or confused

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

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.

jacee

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1025

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.

That'll only encourage more people to spam the forum with useless posts if ranks are achieved like that. The current ranking system is doing fine. Adding another rank or maybe even incentives to legendary and up members would be great.

digaran

copper member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 899

🖤😏

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.

Zosuda

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

sounds good give the forum something new and more important ranks would be nice.

DRaGoN RaNTaRo

sr. member

Activity: 319

Merit: 250

Quote from: indijim on October 04, 2016, 10:43:27 PM

No matter what the system, eventually a lot of people will reach the highest status. If I'm not mistaken it takes years to reah legendary, so it's not easy feat. If there are a lot of people with legendary, than that means there's a lot of activity on this site, and the site is not that young anymore.

if they have a long term plan to maintain this forum for a few more years then they should think about a better system,either they have to revamp the activity level which is not possible since everyone will be affected,one thing they can do is create new ranking level and combine the hours online as well as the reported post accuracy along with the activity level and implement the new ranking levels like you see in elite torrent sites.

indijim

sr. member

Activity: 471

Merit: 250

No matter what the system, eventually a lot of people will reach the highest status. If I'm not mistaken it takes years to reah legendary, so it's not easy feat. If there are a lot of people with legendary, than that means there's a lot of activity on this site, and the site is not that young anymore.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 04, 2016, 02:13:46 PM

The ranks should just follow the existing pattern of doubling the activity each time. Legendary should be made achievable at 960 then the next rank at 1920 and so on.

I see this problematic in the long run as you end up having a lot of people labeled in a specific rank that is supposed to be *rare*, e.g. legendary (note: How long this is going to take is debatable).

Quote from: mindrust on October 04, 2016, 03:20:59 PM

Soon most of us will be legendaries.

No, the word soon is wrong here. I've seen a lot of people state this, and yet it isn't even close to happening.

Quote from: deisik on October 04, 2016, 03:28:19 PM

Please note that I'm talking only about increasing the activity levels required for reaching the next rank, not about the activity itself, which will get increased as per usual, i.e. every two weeks by 14 points

Progressively increasing the activity levels would probably be a more accurate description of what you're suggesting.

Quote from: Marma Kalari on October 04, 2016, 03:38:11 PM

users should be VETERAN this rank must be given based on the activity level as well as a voting system between the admin or the staff members and make a bench mark which cannot be gained easily to this user class, how about this suggestion folks.

Staff votes on Veteran rank for user X -> User X scams group of people Y -> Group of people Y blame staff for promoting user X. No thanks.

Marma Kalari

sr. member

Activity: 546

Merit: 250

kittiefight.io Combat MMO Lending Jackpots

in order to make things interesting for legendary users it advisable to have some changes in the star signs or another rank which can be used for long term users should be VETERAN this rank must be given based on the activity level as well as a voting system between the admin or the staff members and make a bench mark which cannot be gained easily to this user class, how about this suggestion folks.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: hilariousandco on October 04, 2016, 02:13:46 PM

The ranks should just follow the existing pattern of doubling the activity each time. Legendary should be made achievable at 960 then the next rank at 1920 and so on.

I don't think it is a good idea either to have half the forum promoted to a Legendary rank at some point in the future. In regard to keeping the activity level doubled for each rank, that shouldn't be an issue. If we decide to keep the existing schedule of increasing the activity by 14 points every other week, we would only need to increase the activity threshold for higher ranks more often (or rather less often for lower ranks). For example, incrementing the activity level required for a Senior Member by 14 would in this case require 4 weeks, within which the threshold for reaching a Hero Member rank will be increased two times by 28 in total (14+14). In this way, we will have the new activity levels set to 254 and 254x2=508, or 240+14 and 480+14+14, for Senior and Hero members, respectively...

Please note that I'm talking only about increasing the activity levels required for reaching the next rank, not about the activity itself, which will get increased as per usual, i.e. every two weeks by 14 points

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 2442

It has been some years since this forum created so with every day new legendary accounts join among us. Soon most of us will be legendaries. It would be nice to add another rank after legendary. Like legendary-plus :p I support that one.

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

as someone corrected me in another thread, there really aren't that many legendaries and you have to be very consistent to get there. not many people stick around in a forum for over two years and keep the activity up.

saying that, I think it would be cool if the most tenacious posters did get some higher ranks. you'd know they were here for the serious long haul. I still wouldn't trust one without verification. all it takes is one little password to get in and wreak havoc.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: poptok1 on October 04, 2016, 02:50:03 PM

Apropos duration, what about login time? Maybe some sort of endurance rank?

That won't work either since it can be easily cheated with an auto-refresh plugin.

poptok1

hero member

Activity: 1638

Merit: 756

Bobby Fischer was right

Quote from: Lauda on October 04, 2016, 02:12:01 PM

I think this is a decent idea (considering that the forum is aging and it's based on duration) that should be coupled with more changes before being labeled as a'revamp'.

Apropos duration, what about login time? Maybe some sort of endurance rank?
Saw few high rank users with activity just above post count (farmers) their online time must be tiny, there should be something to give justice for those who sit here and observe/read, not only posts or activity should be a factor.

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 3990

Merit: 2717

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: Lauda on October 04, 2016, 02:33:11 PM

Quote from: ModGirl on October 04, 2016, 02:24:44 PM

I also like that idea to create another category which will be the most higher of the members and that category will be only for those members who will the most trusted members of this forum so that people will easily recognize the most trusted members of the members and we will not need any guarantee from a third party while dealing with them.

The reputation system, specifically a users trust rating is there to for this very reason. It helps distinguish users that have *proven* to be at least somewhat trustworthy from the random people on the forum. Adding specific ranks for *trusted* members may end up in potential abuse among other things. If such a member scams someone in any way or form, they're likely going to blame the forum (staff) for giving them that rank.

Exactly. You shouldn't be trusting people based on a rank anyway. You can take it into consideration but having staff implement a trusted badge or rank of whatever sort is only going to lead to abuse and a false sense of security.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: ModGirl on October 04, 2016, 02:24:44 PM

I also like that idea to create another category which will be the most higher of the members and that category will be only for those members who will the most trusted members of this forum so that people will easily recognize the most trusted members of the members and we will not need any guarantee from a third party while dealing with them.

The reputation system, specifically a users trust rating is there for this very reason. It helps distinguish users that have *proven* to be at least somewhat trustworthy from the random people on the forum. Adding specific ranks for *trusted* members may end up being problematic. If such a member scams someone in any way or form, they're likely going to blame the forum (staff) for giving them that rank. In addition to that, it creates a lot more stressful workload for the forum staff (deciding who is really trustworthy isn't as easy as some think).

ModGirl

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 250

I also like that idea to create another category which will be the most higher of the members and that category will be only for those members who will the most trusted members of this forum so that people will easily recognize the most trusted members of the members and we will not need any guarantee from a third party while dealing with them.

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 3990

Merit: 2717

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

The ranks should just follow the existing pattern of doubling the activity each time. Legendary should be made achievable at 960 then the next rank at 1920 and so on.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

I think this is a decent idea (considering that the forum is aging and it's based on duration) that should be coupled with more changes before being labeled as a'revamp'.

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...

I'd like to combine that with either with changing the names of the ranks, and/or adding some newer ones. The system does feel a little dull to me, especially after one reaches 'Legendary'.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

I've heard a few times that the Legendary rank doesn't cut it any more, that there are too many members of this rank which totally discredits it, and that there will be even more such members over time. The latter can hardly be argued against. In this manner, folks have been suggesting adding a new rank (grandmaster, admin, mythical, whatever). I think this will only further confuse the issue. We already have a few varieties of members (just members, junior members, full members, senior members). 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...

What do you guys/gals think?

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