New Ranking System IN EFFECT

[The Abiliegh]

So, we moderators and admin have been toying around with different options for ranking here on Brass Goggles, and we've come to an agreement, selected the upgrade, and are gearing up to implement it. We wanted to let everyone in on the change in advance, so no one is surprised when the ranks change, possibly drastically.

Ranking will be determined by time spent actively browsing the forums. Whether you're reading, writing, or just plain browsing, your "time logged in" is recorded, and that time will be used to determine where you stand (just leaving you're browser window open won't increase you're time). This change is happening for several reasons. Yes, we are still combating the trend of excessive posts in off-topic compared to the other sections of the forum, but we are also trying to reward our long time members who just may not feel the need to say something when the tiniest whim takes them. This is more fair across the board, and I, for one, am excited to see it.

We've still got a few small details to work out, but everything should be up and running soon, spanners willing, of course!

Happy browsing, and we'll keep you all updated!
-Abi-

Update from proteus: The rank system is now installed; we'll be tweaking the number of hours online required for each rank on an experimental basis.  If you notice rank changes over the next few days, please pay it no mind - just us fiddling. End update

[akumabito]

As I still feel somewhat responsible for starting the postfarming trend on this forum, I greatly welcome this change!

[Jennette Haber]

that does sound interesting! i'm curious to see where my time stands ^_^

[akumabito]

You can see your current time at the top of the page, for me it reads:

"Total time logged in: 58 days, 23 hours and 45 minutes."

Question about the new system though - you said it isn't about total time logged in, but rather time spent actively browsing the forum - does that mean everybody will start from scratch again?

[OldProfessorBear]

You can see your current time at the top of the page, for me it reads:

"Total time logged in: 58 days, 23 hours and 45 minutes."

Question about the new system though - you said it isn't about total time logged in, but rather time spent actively browsing the forum - does that mean everybody will start from scratch again?

No. It uses your current time. A few tweaks to the break points will probably be necessary, so you may possibly see your rank change a couple of times (e.g., go down then up) before we stabilize it.

[clockwork creation]

Will this system change ranking to existing titles or will new ones be implemented ?

[JingleJoe]

Will this system change ranking to existing titles or will new ones be implemented ?

I specified specifically that we keep the same ones however some more might be added after the current highest title

[clockwork creation]

Will this system change ranking to existing titles or will new ones be implemented ?

I specified specifically that we keep the same ones however some more might be added after the current highest title

Sorry old chap, not on the ball tonight it would seem

[proteus]

The rank system is now installed; we'll be tweaking the number of hours online required for each rank on an experimental basis.  If you notice rank changes over the next few days, please pay it no mind - just us fiddling.

The change has been switching the unit from "number of posts" to "hours online", but we haven't yet changed the values.  So, a rank that previously required 25 posts now requires 25 hours online.  That's a little silly, so it will be adjusted until we find a good fit.  Thanks for your patience!

[akumabito]

Hahah, yeah.. 25hrs online is a pretty serious length of time and I guess many people here don't even come close to that..

How many different ranks are there? Perhaps we just need more of 'm..

Hmm, I've jotted down some notes for myself, but it is indeed quite hard to come up with a proper rating system. Either the gaps become really huge, or you're stuck with a rather ridiculous number of ranks/titles. Some sort of logarithmic scale then?

[OswaldBastable]

if its really such an issue why not just abolish them ?

[garingling]

I still don't see how this makes a difference with postwhoring in the off topic sections. There are still people who have nothing better to do then post useless chit chat all day and/or contribute very little elsewhere so they are still going to have far higher rankings then someone who takes it more seriously and/or has a life. Just my Opinion which I know counts for nothing, but I still needed to say it.

Georgia in a somewhat irritable mood today.

[JingleJoe]

Would it be possible to veiw our active time as well as total time logged in?


Also how is active time determined? Two clicks within a certain boundry of time counts as an active period? Often I spend ages writing and proof reading my messages so I may slip out of that boundry if it is short Or is it just a few seconds for each link visited?

[OldProfessorBear]

Would it be possible to veiw our active time as well as total time logged in?


Also how is active time determined? Two clicks within a certain boundry of time counts as an active period? Often I spend ages writing and proof reading my messages so I may slip out of that boundry if it is short Or is it just a few seconds for each link visited?

Total time logged in is the same as active time. If it were not, for example, I would rack up 168 hours every week, since I always have several tabs open to BG, and I never turn off the computer (and it's a DSL connection, so always connected).

As to how active time is determined: I'm not 100% sure, but I will look into it as it's a good question!

[akumabito]

I still don't see how this makes a difference with postwhoring in the off topic sections. There are still people who have nothing better to do then post useless chit chat all day and/or contribute very little elsewhere so they are still going to have far higher rankings then someone who takes it more seriously and/or has a life. Just my Opinion which I know counts for nothing, but I still needed to say it.

Georgia in a somewhat irritable mood today.

A karma system would solve that. I would expect though, that 95 percent of posters would remain at 0. Unless rating is actively encouraged for relatively minor contributions, such as posting helpful information, useful links, good stories or photos, etc..

Also, it does nothing to acknowledge and reward our active lurkers.

[OldProfessorBear]

I still don't see how this makes a difference with postwhoring in the off topic sections. There are still people who have nothing better to do then post useless chit chat all day and/or contribute very little elsewhere so they are still going to have far higher rankings then someone who takes it more seriously and/or has a life. Just my Opinion which I know counts for nothing, but I still needed to say it.

Georgia in a somewhat irritable mood today.

Well, having looked at the memberlist sorted by number of posts, it does make some difference in fact. There are a few individuals whose postcounts are way out of line with their new ranks; I think the implications are fairly clear.

The overall idea is to give equal credit to people who actually spend time reading the forum. I think it's a much better measure of interest and commitment. And once people realize what's going on, there might be fewer "junk" postings ... but time will tell.

[garingling]

Professor Bear I understand giving credit to people for reading I know as of late that is what I mainly do, so I'm not against it. However I have noticed that there are people that just seem to be racking up their time mainly in the off topic. If they are posting there all day long then under the new ranking system it still allows them to rank up faster due to time spent on then say someone who has less time to read or post anywhere on the forum. I hope it does make a difference and maybe I will see it as time goes on but I'm still skeptical that people who don't take it more seriously won't still be high ranking. I guess I'm more irritated with the excessive "Junk" posting of some members then this actual change. I know we could all be guilty of posting trival stuff at times, but some just take it to far and in multiple threads until they just clutter things up to the point that I don't even want to read some threads anymore.
Georgia

[Sir Nikolas Vendigroth]

I still don't see how this makes a difference with postwhoring in the off topic sections. There are still people who have nothing better to do then post useless chit chat all day and/or contribute very little elsewhere so they are still going to have far higher rankings then someone who takes it more seriously and/or has a life. Just my Opinion which I know counts for nothing, but I still needed to say it.

Georgia in a somewhat irritable mood today.

A karma system would solve that. I would expect though, that 95 percent of posters would remain at 0. Unless rating is actively encouraged for relatively minor contributions, such as posting helpful information, useful links, good stories or photos, etc..

Also, it does nothing to acknowledge and reward our active lurkers.

British Blades used to have a karma system, 'though we called it Rep. In the end, little cliques formed, repping each other circularly, and for no real reason other than to increase the rep of their freinds and themselves. It was eventually binned.

Not to mention the fallings-out when a single negative rep point was given.

[S.Sprocket]

British Blades used to have a karma system, 'though we called it Rep. In the end, little cliques formed, repping each other circularly, and for no real reason other than to increase the rep of their freinds and themselves. It was eventually binned.

Not to mention the fallings-out when a single negative rep point was given.

This is one of many reasons why we'll never do karma. 

We already have cliques who exclude some of our members. Some of our cliques have even started their own forums. Though in the end they still post here mostly.  *shrug* people are clicky, but why give them an excuse to behave that way?

[proteus]

I like the time-based rank because it does reward lurkers - it's also easier for an admin to deflate someone who feels it's fun to lord their rank over others: time online is resettable, while post count adjustments require removal of site content. ;-)

As for "karma" and similar reward systems, they have their place, but it's fantastically hard to implement in a way that doesn't reward cliquey and other asinine behavior. If we were to ever have some kind of reputation system, it would have to allow anonymous (to users) rating, punish people for misusing their rating ability, and so on.  The whole set of requirements for something that actually works well is annoyingly complex.

I have toyed with the idea of "achievements" - particular behavior that we'd like to reward. The ranks are a simple version of this concept, but it might be fun to get badges for "online every day for a month" and other such things.

The point of any of these features, including rank, is fun.

[Rowan of Rin]

I have toyed with the idea of "achievements" - particular behavior that we'd like to reward. The ranks are a simple version of this concept, but it might be fun to get badges for "online every day for a month" and other such things.

I like this idea, I have seen it implemented on a few forums to good effect

The point of any of these features, including rank, is fun.

A very true statement which a lot of people need realise!

[dman762000]

Sounds like a decent idea, but, still, meh. I never put much stock in ranks. I don't really see where it matters, but, if it matters to some people, eh, ok.

[markf]

Professor Bear I understand giving credit to people for reading I know as of late that is what I mainly do, so I'm not against it. However I have noticed that there are people that just seem to be racking up their time mainly in the off topic. If they are posting there all day long then under the new ranking system it still allows them to rank up faster due to time spent on then say someone who has less time to read or post anywhere on the forum. I hope it does make a difference and maybe I will see it as time goes on but I'm still skeptical that people who don't take it more seriously won't still be high ranking. I guess I'm more irritated with the excessive "Junk" posting of some members then this actual change. I know we could all be guilty of posting trival stuff at times, but some just take it to far and in multiple threads until they just clutter things up to the point that I don't even want to read some threads anymore.
Georgia

Yup, what she said.  It would not phase me in the least to see OT go away entirely to save the BG owners some money, time, maintenance, & bandwidth, but since that's not going to happen any mechanism that does not reward non-steampunk discussions works for me.   Keeping in mind Ms T’s original OT posting guidelines (“Postwhoring:  Threads which could be considered as "post-whoring", or that encourage minimal content replies, such as 'I ate eggs" or "I washed my hands" will be curtailed”) – just look at the OT topics there right  A significant minority of threads with many thousands of posts look like they fit this definition.  Perhaps simply enforcing the original or revised OT guidelines would improve the situation. markf

[Zwack]

A significant minority of threads with many thousands of posts look like they fit this definition.  Perhaps simply enforcing the original or revised OT guidelines would improve the situation. markf

I agree, but how do you differentiate?  For example any Mornington Crescent type thread will have lots of very short replies.  Yes, it's off topic, but it's not the same as some of the postwhoring that goes on.  Do we really need an introduce yourself thread, a getting to know you thread, and a "five things about you" thread?

I have no solution... other than being stricter on the rules.

Z.

[HAC]

I like the time-based rank because it does reward lurkers - it's also easier for an admin to deflate someone who feels it's fun to lord their rank over others: time online is resettable, while post count adjustments require removal of site content. ;-)

Post count is pretty easily edited/reset  by an admin in the current SMF software , its a one-click change..

Cheers
Harold