View Poll Results: Do you like the proposed new rank hierarchy?

Voters
74. You may not vote on this poll
  • I like the proposed new hierarchy of ranks

    13 17.57%
  • I don't like the proposed hierarchy

    2 2.70%
  • I like the idea of more ranks but want other rank names

    13 17.57%
  • I don't care. Could we talk about fishing?

    12 16.22%
  • What's a rank?

    2 2.70%
  • Eliminate ranks altogether

    32 43.24%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Proposed change in user ranks

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 1997
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    532

    Question Proposed change in user ranks

    I'm considering a change in rankings. Some members have already reached the top....in just 6 weeks. This "default" ranking that we are currently using is designed for low volume boards:

    Junior member 0 posts
    Member 30 posts
    Senior member 100 posts

    Here's my proposed hierarchy:

    New member 0 posts
    Junior member 10 posts
    Full member 50 posts
    Senior member 250 posts
    Master member 500 posts

    This adds a couple of ranks and raises the bars.

    Another idea on rank names is to use Alaska terms. I like the idea, but it may be difficult for everyone to understand them. My inclination is to add the ranks, make the rank names generic, and continue thinking about alternate names. It's pretty easy to change them later.

    Please use the poll to vote your preference on this. If you have comments, you are welcome to add them.
    <20 June 2006: added poll item to allow votes on eliminating ranks altogether>

    Thanks....David
    Last edited by Webmaster; 06-20-2006 at 08:11.

  2. #2

    Default

    What about something along these lines David?

    New member = Caribou
    Junior Member = Black Bear
    Full Member = Dall Ram
    Senior Membe = Brown Bear
    Master Member = Bull Moose

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley trash.....and proud of it.
    Posts
    813

    Default

    I agree with the alaskan names. if someone doesnt understand it means they had better spend more time on the forum....lol

  4. #4
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,768

    Wink hey...!

    i think Dall ram should be above moose, and Sitka deer should be the lowest rank.
    i would also propose a designation for anybody with over 1000 posts in a year...something that suggests they spend more time online then outdoors..<grin>
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  5. #5
    Member Casper50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Why use them at all? It's just another way to keep score. What good are they? As you can tell I can care less.

  6. #6
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,768

    Default actually, i agree with casper50

    one of the things i liked most about the "old" forum was that there was no ranking....
    sometimes folks equate (their own) number of posts with expertise...or come down on newbies based on number of posts...really no good reason to keep track...just an ego thing.
    in all honesty i would advocate doing away with "post ranking" all together.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida
    Posts
    781

    Default junior junior

    this probabally suits me...

    Rosenberg/Florida

  8. #8

    Default

    Junk the rankings. It encourages too many folks to post crap that shouldn't see the light of a computer screen.

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 1997
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    532

    Lightbulb Added poll item

    I added an additional poll choice to allow you to vote on whether to eliminate the ranking system altogether.

    David

  10. #10
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,288

    Default Eliminate ranks

    Eliminate ranking altogether. Everyone is a "member." If in future you have a system whereby someone is a "supporter," then perhaps "supporting member" would be his/her status. If someone posts over 1000 posts in a year, then by mandate they must be a supporter <grin>.

    Mark

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    266

    Default Ranks!!!

    1) Amoeba 2) Gnat 3) Muskrat 4) Ungulate 5) Golden Eagle. Does'nt that sound better? Well at least it is something along the lines of hierarchy in my mind.

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    650

    Default user ranks and post count

    I thought that the new forum software is great. however, it seems to me that the guys who have contributed informed information for years here as members who then had to go to a zero post count, like a newby, did not seem like the right or respectful thing to do for the longtime members.

    rankings are fine, but the post count from the old site should be included in the rankings in addtion to the count from the new site. m.h.o.

  13. #13
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 1997
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    532

    Default Yep...

    Quote Originally Posted by cold zero
    I thought that the new forum software is great. however, it seems to me that the guys who have contributed informed information for years here as members who then had to go to a zero post count, like a newby, did not seem like the right or respectful thing to do for the longtime members.

    rankings are fine, but the post count from the old site should be included in the rankings in addtion to the count from the new site. m.h.o.
    I don't disagree. I'll ask our tech guy what it would cost to assemble that information. If it's not unreasonable, I'll see if we can port it over and add to what we now have here.

    My assumption was that it would be unreasonably expensive, so I didn't even ask.

    It's a bunch of MySQL work...beyond me....David

  14. #14
    Member Jktimm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Meadow Lakes, Wasilla
    Posts
    213

    Talking rank - doesn't that mean "smells bad?"

    How about establishing ranking for $$ contributing supporters?
    Then you would have admins / members / and then contributing members.
    I really hate to encourage some of you guys to post simply to raise your ranking...

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chignik , AK
    Posts
    93

    Default scrap it

    Too many just post BS . Only those who post alot of BS care about the rank.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    40

    Default

    I think the rank system should go also.

  17. #17

    Default

    Why keep a post count, it's no different than ranking in my opnion.

  18. #18
    New member Longbow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    62

    Default Thanks for asking

    I voted to eliminate; not because of any of the opinions provided here, or that I don’t believe it matters one iota – but because it will annoy certain individuals who, I believe, need the recognition … and that pleases me.

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    687

    Default No Rankings

    I agree with those that have said too much validity may be given to the postings of higher ranking members. That said, anyone who blindly takes one person's opinion as gospel, deserves what they get out of it!

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    54

    Default

    I think Longbow has the right idea

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •