{EE}chEmicalbuRn
2009-04-24 17:13:24
Epoch wrote:I think that adding ranks would be kinda pointless. Determining rank upon post #'s seems unimportant, and assessing everyones contributions and then assigning them a rank would inevitably be tedious to say the least. The amount of posts you've made really has no bearing on whether you are contributing useful information or not, so this seems to be moot, esspecially with such high post #'s to attain graduate and higher ranks. I think if anything determining rank upon # of posts would only encourage spamming, esspecially amoung new initiates.
If ranks were to be assigned I would suggest one rank that deliniates between those who consistantly post usefull information, and those who don't. Maybe along the lines of Dedicated Contributor or something like that. This would be for people who, write articles, consistantly answer peoples questions and provide help, provide information on strategies/techniques, share learning experiences, et cetera. A Dedicated Contributor would basically be someone who supports the community and essentially stands for its purpose by being a conduit of usefull information on the forums. Granted this WOULD have to be an assigned rank, but one would only have to concider maybe 30-40 individuals instead of the entire community when picking candidates for the rank/title. This would ease the rank assignment process and give regognition where it is deserved amoung active posters on the forum.
well said. my thoughts exactly