New site User Ranking System

[Admin]

Great comments people, it is your site so input is always greatly appreciated.

 

So, what levels do you think we should have that shows respect of those that are helping to build the site, the resource up for others

 

 

[horsefeathers]

Perhaps, a system that rewards posters for the number of likes, rather than just a raw count of their posts. After all, it's a quality rating, not quantity, you're after.

 

Some of the posters here make a lot of noise, but don't deserve the same status as (for example) facthunter.

 

So, expand the 'like' system slightly, and tie a user's status to that.

 

 

[IBob]

And here was me thinking Well Known Member was some sly allusion to having...um...spread part of oneself about a bit........

 

 

[Admin]

Perhaps, a system that rewards posters for the number of likes, rather than just a raw count of their posts. After all, it's a quality rating, not quantity, you're after.Some of the posters here make a lot of noise, but don't deserve the same status as (for example) facthunter.

 

So, expand the 'like' system slightly, and tie a user's status to that.

Yeah, I had thought of that however the likes system is bundled together as a single function in the site and to tap into it taps into it as a whole...now what happens if by some chance down the track we introduce a negative like, this would also be counted as +1, stuffing up the whole ranking system, the very thing I am trying to avoid in rebuilding the site to make it more future proof

 

 

[johnm]

your postal code in a way is a ranking system (or seems to be used as one in surveys) ............... and we seem to be able to live with that

 

the number of posts probably indicates interest, wit, keeness, good intent, a person enjoying and using the site - number of posts (as opposed to likes) seems OK to me

 

 

[eightyknots]

your postal code in a way is a ranking system (or seems to be used as one in surveys) ............... and we seem to be able to live with thatthe number of posts probably indicates interest, wit, keeness, good intent, a person enjoying and using the site - number of posts (as opposed to likes) seems OK to me

I agree that the number of posts indicates (roughly) a willingness to participate in the site. It is unlikely that someone will post hundreds of time consuming 'nonsense' posts just to get a higher ranking: it would be too much trouble and the amount of kudos earned from a higher rank would be outweighed by a poor reputation caused by nonsensical rubbish they used to fill the forum.

 

 

[Admin]

...and like what I am doing now, removing all the non-value added old posts

 

 

[storchy neil]

Yep - someone will pull rank on a lower-rating member, and give him a penalty such as 7 days CB (that's Confined to Barracks, for those who avoided the Green Machine).

 

one track 1965 confined to barracks bloody sergeants mess wacol gee the medicial drops were tasty neil

 

 

[turboplanner]

A member who posts a lot is just ....... a member who posts a lot.

 

There is no relationship between umber of postings and skill levels, so I don't think a ranking level other than volume based is a good idea.

 

The person who I consider to have the most oustanding knowledge of recreational flying, safety, management, training and mentoring, and who has more likes than messages is way down the message count. (and I'm not going to embarrass him).

 

Giving someone a ranking of squadron leader, just because he/she has achieved x number of posts is disrespectful to the work that our air force members have to do to achieve their rankings.

 

We had it before and it added a nasty element to the forums where negative comments were often made about a person's rank vs their argument; we haven't been having those arguments in recent times.

 

You could have Activity level 1,2,3,4,5 etc. but what does that really tell you about a person?

 

 

[Admin]

We had it before and it added a nasty element to the forums where negative comments were often made about a person's rank vs their argument; we haven't been having those arguments in recent times.

When we had it before I don't recall any fighting with it, it was removed when another site copied it and it was replaced with recreational aviation levels like Student Pilot, Pilot, Cross Country etc up to Instructor. Stupid me for doing that as there were many problems with people saying that they were not a student pilot so why have them listed as such etc, that system was quickly removed and was never replaced and then we changed forum software etc etc etc.

So, why have a ranking system at all...well me personally I like to see site users rewarded in some automated way for helping others on site and the site itself to grow. It can also help other site users to some extent that the poster has contributed a lot to the site.

 

 

[Diddy Pilot]

"So, why have a ranking system at all...well me personally I like to see site users rewarded in some automated way for helping others on site and the site itself to grow. It can also help other site users to some extent that the poster has contributed a lot to the site."

 

I agree with the sentiment Ian, however there is the question of Quantity vs Quality. There are be some some who will contribute a lot of posts but very little value. For instance I could click on the Agree, Like, Informative or Helpful icons to show my appreciation for the value of someone elses post, or I could elevate my status (number of posts) by posting "I agree", or "Thanks". Over time I think most users have worked out who they think contributes quantity vs quality, who they trust to be knowledgeable and who just always has something to say.

 

Is there not a risk that some users might chase status and contribute excess posts. This might lead to other users having to wade through crap to access valuable content and the site inherits storage issues.

 

I applaud your efforts in maintaining and improving this site, the recognition of users is good but the most valuaeble component is the content. In the prefect world it would be great to recognise those who have demonstrated their expertise be it in designing, building, legislation, training, aircraft handling or even history of aviation. Rather than just, "this guy posts a lot so I should trust what he says", as this is dangerous for new members. Perhaps we could have some user nominations for recognition, then on a cyclic (annual?) basis awards be given to those who have improved the collective knowledge of all users.

 

 

[johnm]

Gee thanks Turboplanner - I try my best !

 

Stuff quality and value ............. although they are fine attributes we all don't come out of the same mold

 

participation an opinion is way more important ........... it adds to the fabric of the conversation - hence number of posts works well (all for fun with rank)

 

 

[Admin]

Ok, I have spent several hours on this and can see a way that I can, if needed in the future, not have a negative like associated with the total count of Likes. This means that there is a possibility of basing the ranks on total Likes.

 

I was worried that in doing this that if in the future we add a negative Like, for example a Thumbs Down "Disagree" Like, it would still be counted as an overall Like making any ranking based on likes not good. However, if we ever do add for example a "Disagree" Like, it can be done in a way that is not counted in the query of total Likes.

 

So, let's explore the option of ranks based on positive Likes and more specifically, the textual terms we give those ranks...for example:

 

0 Noobe - be gentle

 

25 Yay - I'm liked

 

50 Getting friendlier

 

100 Learning to help

 

250 I'm really liked

 

500

 

1000

 

2,500

 

5,000

 

10,000 I will always help

 

What do you think?

 

 

[storchy neil]

bloody hell ian I will be cleaning the marshals boots for the rest of me life :please:neil

 

 

[Guernsey]

Current we have a 4 tier user ranking of:

1. New Member
    
    
   
2. Member
    
    
   
3. Active Member
    
    
   
4. Well-Known Member
    
    
   

 

 

That is based on the Trophy Ladder.

 

With the site being rebuilt it is proposed to replace these with a ladder system based on number of posts and the ranks following the Australian Air Force Ranks:

 

[ATTACH=full]45480[/ATTACH]

 

Any thoughts before I build it in?

Does the Air VICE Marshall require any other qualifications?

 

Alan.

 

 

[Litespeed]

I like the RAAF style ranks.

 

It is a private recreation air force and no disrespect to the actual RAAF.

 

It is fun like Ian said.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't think the number of posts should determine it (if you are going down the RANK thing at all). The way people rate the posts would have more validity. Not the size (number of posts) but the value of it (quality) and usefulness to others and the sites reputation. Nev

 

 

[Robbo]

I don't think the number of posts should determine it (if you are going down the RANK thing at all). The way people rate the posts would have more validity. Not the size (number of posts) but the value of it (quality) and usefulness to others and the sites reputation. Nev

Agree, base the ranks on the number of likes not posts.

 

 

[facthunter]

You might want to work out what is a "like". "Optimistic" and "creative" could be a negative in some circumstances or even an error. Nev

 

 

[red750]

A famous man once said, "You can't please all of the people all of the time."

 

 

[onetrack]

There are posts, and there are posts.

 

1. Numbers of users post humour, and numbers of users post valuable instructive information. You can't compare them directly, but you need both for forum balance.

 

2. No-one on a forum is required to post a CV, outlining their training levels, qualifications and skill sets. This makes it a little more difficult to sort the empty vessels just making sounds, from the intelligentsia providing good value information.

 

3. Vast amounts of postings on forums is personal opinion - with which, others may agree, or may disagree. There are many subjects that are not cut-and-dried - and opinions, along with your mileage, may vary substantially.

 

4. There are many technically relatively unqualified people, who have very valid opinions and approaches and advice. They often have a lifetime of wisdom and extensive experience behind them, and their opinions are worth reading.

 

5. Awarding "more and more senior forum positions" based on the number of postings, is not something really worth pursuing, IMO - because of all of the above. It can lead to jealousies and pettiness in forum behaviour.

 

6. There already is a message count and a "likes" count, to give one a personal opinion of a poster. That opinion could vary widely between individuals.

 

I don't believe issuing personal rankings, according to the number of posts, adds any value to this forum.

 

Just my .02c worth, feel free to disagree. I have a thick skin after having been a multiple forum poster for over 17 years.

 

A number of those forums dissolved into backbiting, recriminations, and abusive behaviour. I usually left when that happened. It takes good moderation to make a good forum, not issuing ranking for posters.

 

 

[Litespeed]

A famous man once said, "You can't please all of the people all of the time."

. Nor should you. If you piss some off and that group changes from time to time then you are doing the right thing

 

 

[Ungrounded]

Perhaps use a weighted metric of say number-of-likes/number-of-messages*100 ? Perhaps too simplistic and would result in people being court martialed for lack of likes and sliding back down the ranking scale. But take the idea and play with the math. You should be able to find a metric formula that ranks Forum users by both quantity (number of posts) and quality of those posts (likes).

 

 

[Admin]

Thanks for the suggestion. I looked at how to incorpoate a math calculation like % of likes to # of posts but the performance hit was too high. Remember it has to get the figure for every user in a thread page every time a thread page is drawn on the screen

 

 

[Robbo]

Maybe we should just leave it as is, people seem to not worry about the old system, but there whinging about the new ideas.