member status

[admin]

Perhaps if the "Member Status" line could default to how long a person has been a registered user, that would give a little more useful information.

I'm afraid that just isn't possible within the current forum system.

Also, what do those little knot things between the "member Status" line and the "number of posts" line mean?

The yellow knots indicate a poster's status (Newbie, Junior etc) based upon the number of posts they have made. Newbie = 1 knot to Senior Member = 5 knots.

Knots other than yellow are reserved for forum administrators and moderators.

[admin]

Another thought, should there be an indication of IGKT membership (and term of that membership)?

I'm afraid this isn't possible within the current forum. Such an addition would require an extensive re-write of multiple scripts and would probably cost in the region of £500. Added to which, bespoking a forum in this manner effectively means that it would not be possible to update the forum as/when newer versions become available. The bespoked version is simply incompatible with any future updates.

[knudeNoggin]

Perhaps if the "Member Status" line could default to how long a person has been a registered user, that would give a little more useful information.

I'm afraid that just isn't possible within the current forum system.

Why not?
It seems to me that having the KnotSymbols indicate what is already stated
explicitly--i.e., the number of posts (given in detail)--is no great benefit.  It
is like coloring that number, even (numbers below X in plain black, X to Y
in blue, Y+1 to Z in red, and so on).

Any way to fudge the system if the KnotSymbols come only by some
automatical way?  --but still retain the numerical posts-count correctly.
The idea of showing longevity of participation is of some value, yes?

The "karma" system seems worth a try; it being a way to assess quality
by the community.  Readers are free to disagree and take with salt as needed,
but there is some belief on evidence that such wide-community feelings or
opinions are often better than few-experts advice, even.  And in any case here
it is only informational, not attendant to some special privileges (as all posts
within guidelines can be made and read).

*knudeNoggin*

[DerekSmith]

The quality rating seemed like a good idea. 

That is until I became to first person to pick up a -1.

I've got a pretty thick skin, but I think I would rather have had someone give me their opinion of my comments on the post rather than via an anonimous 'Black Spot' system.  As it stands, I do not even know what the topic or post was which earned me the dubious accolade, so I cannot be more considerate of others in my future posts.

So, whoever it is that dobbed me with the first -1  -  sorry for upsetting you.  PM me if you would like to let me know where you felt I went wrong.

Derek

[Dan_Lehman]

The quality rating seemed like a good idea. 

That is until I became to first person to pick up a -1.

I'm eager to look into this, as soon as I get done "applaud"ing my own posts!
 

Can we understand in more detail how the rating systme works?
Ideally, it seems that a member could give only one vote per post?
Someone with many posts might garner some pluses & minuses
in the course of others' evaluations:  is the total given as an average,
or as some plus/minus ratio?

Hmmm, re-reading, "every time a person reads a post" implies that
there could be some abuse of the system:  e.g., I could repeated read
and rate, highly skewing the assessment for whomever.  Taken on
presumption that none would do this, well--we'd hope--, it might work.

--dl*
====

[Knot Head]

Just checking to see what my status is.

[squarerigger]

I am finding that personal integrity has gone a long way away from some of our posters

I'm eager to look into this, as soon as I get done "applaud"ing my own posts!
 

Can we understand in more detail how the rating systme works?
Ideally, it seems that a member could give only one vote per post?
Someone with many posts might garner some pluses & minuses
in the course of others' evaluations: is the total given as an average,
or as some plus/minus ratio?

Hmmm, re-reading, "every time a person reads a post" implies that
there could be some abuse of the system: e.g., I could repeated read
and rate, highly skewing the assessment for whomever. Taken on
presumption that none would do this, well--we'd hope--, it might work.

--dl*
====

Dan - I cannot believe you said that!?  You are brilliant and we dote on your very words as if they were honey (just kidding - psyche!).  Why would we concern ourselves about whether or not we are mister or miss popular or right or average or being fair or whatever - and why the dual identity?  If we tell the truth of what we see, that should be enough for us as an individual to be comfortable, provided we do not disrespect someone in the process (for disrespect read what you will - it is what is felt by the other).  I like still the idea of expressing whether or not someone is a member or guest and only that - damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!  If what you have to say is good then it is up to you to make it so - a vote does not help convince anyone!  Let's get back to applying your and our considerable talents to better purpose than staring at our collective and individual navels, and wondering whether or not we have had a "bad" grade - if we need to improve then do so!  That's all - thanks for reading.

Lindsey

[Knot Head]

What do we get if we make it to Senior Member, or is that a 55+ Club. 

[DerekSmith]

The number of posts a member makes is an indicator of how much contribution they are making to the content of the forum.

But that is not always a good thing!  The content might not be what the other members want to read or could be offensive or troublemaking.  Most forums allow readers to put  such posters onto ignore.  Their contributions remain unread and lead nowhere.

On the other hand, contributors whos content is interesting, frequently stimulate replies which often include a quote from their post.

If we need a quality/popularity ranking system (which personally I doubt - but then I would say that - wouldn't I!) then how about ranking on the number of times someone is quoted.  They had to have been read to be quoted and being quoted means they have led to greater contribution to the forum.

Does the forum software allow for the automatic ranking of the number of times a poster is quoted?

[Willeke]

Some people post in threads that are discused a lot. People in those threads tend to quote, sometimes to go on telling that the quoted person is mad, crazy and does not know the first thing.

Some people are just helpfull, answer questions and stay out of discussions, they are better to have on the forum than the quoted person who's information is rubbish.
So telling how often someone is quoted is not giving an indication of quality.

I am not sure how well the new system for quality rating is going to work, but lets give the new system some time so we can see if it is working.

Willeke

[DerekSmith]

Some people post in threads that are discused a lot. People in those threads tend to quote, sometimes to go on telling that the quoted person is mad, crazy and does not know the first thing.

Some people are just helpfull, answer questions and stay out of discussions, they are better to have on the forum than the quoted person who's information is rubbish.
So telling how often someone is quoted is not giving an indication of quality.

I am not sure how well the new system for quality rating is going to work, but lets give the new system some time so we can see if it is working.

Willeke

That's a really interesting perspective you have there Willeke.

You equate quoting with "telling that the quoted person is mad, crazy and does not know the first thing."  --  and yes, that is BAD.

Then you equate not quoting with "just helpfull, answer questions and stay out of discussions, they are better to have on the forum than the quoted person who's information is rubbish."  and yes, these are GOOD.

As a moderator, you read all the posts, consequently, we should expect your opion to be balanced and representative.  So lets just have a quick look at the reality of the Goods and the Bads as you see them.

The top ten posters to this forum have contributed a massive 59% of all the posts on the forum - six out of every ten posts from just ten members - These ten make up the bulk of what this forum is, so how do they rank in the quoting stakes?

Well if you take yourself, KnotNow, Nautile and Gordon - between you, you have clocked a total of 3 quotes in the last 400 posts.  Clearly you see yourself and these others as "just helpful  --  better to have on the forum than the quoted person who's information is rubbish"

Then lets look at the other six Jimbo, --dl*, Roo, Lasse, SR and Baz.  In their last 100 posts each, they clocked up a massive 682 quotes - thats roughly one quote for every post they made.  These clearly are the BAD people you refer to because they quote so prolifically and are not like you in the least bit.

But hold on !!  These are amongst the people on this forum I personally most respect, I look forward to their posts and often read them repeatedly because their posts are so balanced and informative.  Yet these prolific quoters are branded by your good self (a Moderator) as "telling that the quoted person is mad, crazy and does not know the first thing."

I think the FACTS Willeke, demonstrate that you view is WRONG. Quoting does not in any way equate with bad posting, and absence of quoting does not equate with good posting. 

Having clarified that point, I reiterate, "The number of times a poster is quoted is potentially a good indicator of the interest they have contributed", so if we need a quality/popularity ranking system, then you might consider basing it on the number of times that poster is quoted.

Derek

[Willeke]

DerekSmith,

I did say:

sometimes to go on telling that the quoted person is mad, crazy and does not know the first thing.

I did not say that every person quoted is anything.
You seem to like getting words out of their context and feel personally attacked.

It is not my personal style to dissect others peoples posts and answer each detail with a quote attached, (but sometimes I do use this style too).
Many people do use that style, nothing wrong there.
The people who use that style of writing are often quoted in return, because people reacting on their posts use the same style.

I used this example to show that being quoted does not proof or disproof quality.

You write:

You equate quoting with "telling that the quoted person is mad, crazy and does not know the first thing."  --  and yes, that is BAD.

That is your interpretation of something you misread.
I have to admit that I did use quoting only in a negative way, but I agree with you that:

Quoting does not in any way equate with bad posting, and absence of quoting does not equate with good posting.

But I disagree with your cunclusion before:

I think the FACTS Willeke, demonstrate that you view is WRONG.

I did not post a view on quoting, only on quoting or being quoted as a way to measure quality of the posts someone makes.

I stay with my conclusion that being quoted is no proof of having posted a worthy post, it only proofs that you posted something that an other person wanted to talk about, without the risk of spelling a word wrong in re-entering the text.
And that you can make good post without anything worthy of quoting or poor posts that will be quoted as is the case with your post which I have quoted from often in this post.

Willeke

[DerekSmith]

DerekSmith,

I used this example to show that being quoted does not proof or disproof quality.

Willeke

Dear Willeke,  thank you so much for agreeing with me.  The measure of how much someone is quoted is an indication of how POPULAR or reply worthy their post was - not its quality.

You have demonstrated this in an excellent manner - if my post had not been of any interest to you, you would simply have ignored it and not responded.  But the fact that you found my post of such interest that you took the time to craft a thorough response - and in one post, you have managed to more than double the number of quotes you have made in your last 100 contributions - demonstrates that you found my post worthy of a response and that by quoting me, the number of times I am quoted is a reflection, a measure of that interest.

So, I ask yet again, how about considering it as a replacement for the black ball, white ball method now installed under the guise of quality.

[Willeke]

When the subject of quality points came up it was to show that a poster gives good info and as such should get more attention by people coming in, no automated system is going to be able to do that.

Quality is something measured by people, not by machines.

And the only reason I reacted to the post of DerekSmith above was that it did say things that are wrong. IE BAD.

Willeke

[Dan_Lehman]

Derek, maybe if you can just manage your 3rd reading the first time (or at least the time
you reply), you won't elicit so much quoting to be corrected.  With the conclusion that
quoting doesn't indicate quality, you nonetheless prefer it to some express measure
of quality?  --to what end?  (So, some poster is continually quoted for correction, another
for meaningful dialogue, and a quote-count doesn't distinguish.  In fact, in the recent
case of your quotes by Willeke, they are all made in an effort to correct mistakes
--if anything, it's likely that most-quoted has a bias towards that ill quality, and not
really much of interest.)

--dl*
====