Top Poster Tag

[FizbansTalking_Hat]

Just a thought, but at the Terry Brooks forum, we have tags that designate who the top posters are of the forum, nothing big but its fun.

Usually it goes:
Top 10
Top 25
Top 50
Top100

Asside from that, you're just a regular poster. And the tag usually is placed under the name some place, just another icon, was wondering if anyone has thought of doing suhc a thing, is it a stupid idea, wanted to see what people thought of such a feautre here.

[CovenantJr]

Yeeeeees. There's been some debate about this kind of thing in the past. Personally, I think those kind of post rankings can lead to Revanism

But seriously, there's some suggestion that it can cause post wars. Besides, quantity isn't the best way to determine the "top" posters.

All IMO, naturally.

[FizbansTalking_Hat]

Hmm, the thing is, when I say TOP I'm talking specifically those that post the most frequently and have the greatest number of posts.

And yes, we all know the whole argument of Quality Vs. Quanitity, but we're on a forum on the net, and there are rankings of posts right next to our names, so I juts figured, top 25 posters. Its not to say that someone is better than smoeone else, just that they post more then them.

If you go to Terry Brooks Forum, I'm considered an old member, and I'm in the top 50 out of 400 or 500, and I'm proud of the fact that I'm a regular and have some old member status, not to put down others, but just to show that I've been a loyal fan and been around th eforum for ages.

Ah well, I can see where some people might get offended but its just a silly tag, so I guess tis not necessry, just wondered what others thought.

[MsMary]

I agree with CovenantJr. I don't think a "top posters" designation is necessary or productive.

It does lead to "post wars" and a proliferation of empty posts.

I am against the idea.

[FizbansTalking_Hat]

Hmm, I believe Cov mentioned this has been discussed before, and if it didn't fly then I guess it won't now, ah well, we don't want post wars, not fun for anyone. Just wondered. Cheers.

[MsMary]

[danlo]

It's one thing to spend the majority of your time in Mallory's than in say TCTC, Dissecting or the Gap. I'm all for some designation of years on the Watch, or something like that-I just never want to see the type of posting flare-up we had when the WGDs were all the rage, again.

[Worm of Despite]

I'm against "top poster" designation/recognition for how may years a person has been posting here. We're all equal. Don't need any dividers, no matter how small or harmless.

We used to have stats for the top-topic maker, but a certain someone began posting 50 useless threads a day, just to get the top spot. So I don't think we should encourage or congratulate the amount of posts or years behind a person. More like the quality behind the person. Numbers don't matter.

And I see nothing wrong with a person spending their time in Mallory, rather than the GAP. If it makes them happy, it's not wasted time.

[danlo]

That's very egaltarian of you Foul...that almost sounds like social status in the Land! Fancy that...That Corruption has made the most sense to me today is highly disturbing!

[A Gunslinger]

I agree than post wars would ensue. I am not in favor, though I hasten to add that I would kick many of you in the posterior region.

[aTOMiC]

I would not be in favor of calling any further attention to my post count. I take enough friendly ribbing about it as it is.

[Worm of Despite]

That's very egaltarian of you Foul...that almost sounds like social status in the Land! Fancy that...That Corruption has made the most sense to me today is highly disturbing!

Well, being stuck so long in this damnable Arch will do a lot to your Despite!

[MsMary]

I'm against "top poster" designation/recognition for how may years a person has been posting here. We're all equal. Don't need any dividers, no matter how small or harmless.

Besides, if you want to know how long someone has been here, all you have to do is look at the join date.

[Worm of Despite]

I'm against "top poster" designation/recognition for how may years a person has been posting here.

HOLY CRAP I MADE A TYPO

Okay, where were we? Heh.

[matrixman]

Anyway, we already have the "Mile High" status thread to recognize members who reach 1000+ posts. It's a fun little thing, I guess, but even that maybe creates in the back of people's minds that some members are "more equal" than other members. Nothing to lose sleep over, but it can be a slippery slope...

Oh well, no harm in bringing up the question, Fiz.

[Worm of Despite]

Yeah, don't get me wrong Fiz. Not mad at you for bringing it up or anything. Nothing wrong with suggesting it. I was just giving my two cents.

[Myste]

It's this kind of friendly, measured discussion, where everyone's opinion & ideas count (even when people disagree) that makes me like it here so much.

[FizbansTalking_Hat]

Thats cool, someplace just doesn't work, its interesting though, we haven't really had any flame or post wars concerning this ranking system we have at Terry Brooks Forum. I'm in teh top 50, but anyways.

Some things work for some places, and some don't, it was a decent discussion. Cheers.

[I'm Murrin]

I think it's enough just having the lists (Stats), and the activity stat in the profile. With the top ten on the stats page, anyone who wants to keep check can just use that.


[Edit - hey Fizban, you made the top ten fastest posters, btw]

[[Syl]]

I know myself and others would be entirely content with having no post count whatsoever.

I'm all for ranking and reward systems, but I think they should be awarded by merit and peer review.

---------
You are not your job. You are not the money in your bank account. You are not the car you drive. You are not how much money is in your wallet. You are not your [post count].