How do YOU feel about Ranks?

[efin98]

As long as it doesn't result in someone making posts just for the sake of making posts to get "promoted" to know there new "rank". Look at the OGR forum, people post things just to brag they have or will have XXXX posts.

On every site that I belong to there is a group of people who do that very thing. It's always the same people: those who are either there for no other reason than to cause trouble or those who don't know enough or are not taken seriously. Someone with 200 posts tends to get taken more seriously than someone with 50 posts, even if the person with 200 posts only makes a few remarks and does not add much substance to conversations.In my not so humble opinion, the rankings do more harm than good.
Let the number of posts or the length of time registered on the site speak more than the "ranking", the only ones who really need to have any differentiation should be the moderators of forums and the administrators.

[MEC407]

Let the number of posts or the length of time registered on the site speak more than the "ranking", the only ones who really need to have any differentiation should be the moderators of forums and the administrators.

Well said!

[Ken V]

I still like the idea of having ranks but, as others have noted, there will be those who will abuse it.

As long as it doesn't result in someone making posts just for the sake of making posts to get "promoted" to know there new "rank".

On every site that I belong to there is a group of people who do that very thing. It's always the same people: those who are either there for no other reason than to cause trouble or those who don't know enough or are not taken seriously. Someone with 200 posts tends to get taken more seriously than someone with 50 posts, even if the person with 200 posts only makes a few remarks and does not add much substance to conversations.In my not so humble opinion, the rankings do more harm than good...

This is true to a point. Those who frequent sites like this will soon recognize a regular poster who has nothing of value to say. To the casual visitor, however, this can be misleading.

... Let the number of posts or the length of time registered on the site speak more than the "ranking",...

If the number of posts and the length of time registered are both factored in then there might be more meaning to a rank. I think a member who posts 10 messages in 100 days will usually have more to say than one who posts 100 messages in 10 days.

... the only ones who really need to have any differentiation should be the moderators of forums and the administrators.

The administrators already have this. I agree that moderators should also have that designation listed but, perhaps, only in the forums they moderate.

[efin98]

If the number of posts and the length of time registered are both factored in then there might be more meaning to a rank. I think a member who posts 10 messages in 100 days will usually have more to say than one who posts 100 messages in 10 days.

In some aspects that is true, but there are alot of people who can rack that many posts just by visiting and participating a few forums. Just by the sheer volume of topics 100 posts in one day can be achieved, epsecially if one participates in forums like the Amtrak, NJTransit, or even the New York Railfan forums. But in most cases you are right though.

The administrators already have this. I agree that moderators should also have that designation listed but, perhaps, only in the forums they moderate.

I think that's a great idea if it is possble to impliment.

[EDM5970]

I like the idea of everyone being a "member", after all we all signed up, gave email addresses, etc. Maybe "contributor" after 100, and "major contributor" after 500 or 1000 posts. No railroad, military, or railfan titles, though. Think publishing, magazine, newspaper-

I think ranks, based on raw numbers of posts, will create a quantity vs. quality issue. I can very quickly rack up a hundred posts by asking "What is your favorite (pick one) locomotive, railroad, paint scheme on an EMD, etc"? I'm sure these type of questions are important to at least the poster and some others, but not everyone will see them as "quality" posts.

If I have a serious question about the poster's credibility, I look up their profile, and look at a few of their posts; also their occupation, if listed. The number of posts, and the date joined become secondary.

Someone like Amtrak's David Gunn (just as an example, nothing inferred or implied) could sign on six months after I did, and one post from someone like him could be "worth" 100 of mine.

[rvrrhs]

Are these rankings automatic (i.e. they are applied by the forum/database/server programming when a certain target number of posts is reached), or do they have to be activated by a moderator or administrator?

If the former, they should be truly whimsical and not meaningful so they will not have much of an offensive effect on the railroad pros nor be such a desirable target for the "me toos." Maybe classify the way trains are classified, i.e. express, local, switcher, etc.

If the latter, then I say leave it to the mods (or some "ranking board") to determine the relative value of a poster's contributions.

[Mike Roque]

Are these rankings automatic (i.e. they are applied by the forum/database/server programming when a certain target number of posts is reached), or do they have to be activated by a moderator or administrator?

Yes, they are automatically assigned according to post count.

[rvrrhs]

If what we're all worried about is offending the oldtimers/railroad pros/whatever, maybe the answer is to either ask them what they would prefer, or just post a sticky announcing "we are applying whimsical ranks that are based on number of posts and don't take them to heart as an affront to your many years of railroading experience..."

[EDM5970]

or just do without-

[David]

Otto - The number of posts (how much they contribute) is visible right under the avatar, as is the experience (the date they joined). With these two stats, adding another one would just be redundant, and we are here to have fun as well as learn something, right?

The fact that many will just add posts that are unnecessary to just "push up" their ranks will exist especially with the young railfan (knowing how young adults will want to impress the seniors on almost any topic). Leave things the way they are. I do not believe it will matter having a rank. However, there are some that will "feel better" since they are further advanced then a Conrail engineer or an administrator.

[JJMDiMunno]

Otto - The number of posts (how much they contribute) is visible right under the avatar, as is the experience (the date they joined). With these two stats, adding another one would just be redundant, and we are here to have fun as well as learn something, right?

The fact that many will just add posts that are unnecessary to just "push up" their ranks will exist especially with the young railfan (knowing how young adults will want to impress the seniors on almost any topic). Leave things the way they are. I do not believe it will matter having a rank. However, there are some that will "feel better" since they are further advanced then a Conrail engineer or an administrator.

I'll agree with David here...I see no reason for any sort of a ranking system...the "other" railroad-related forum website has a ranking system like the one we're talking about here, and all it causes is trouble...personally, I don't think it'll make any difference in the way people enjoy this site if you add them...yeah it's a cool new feature, but people WILL abuse it...

Plus, the post count speaks for itself. Someone should be able to look at the number of posts on a user's record and say "gee...400 posts...I guess he knows what he's talking about", and not have to worry about the little line beneath that count calling the user in question an engineer or something...

In summary, I think we should leave things as they are...no reason for a change...

[SubwaySurface]

I like the idea of ranks. In my experience on messageboards, it's always been more of an incentive to contribute to the site. And every messageboard has abusers... There's no reason that a small few should determine this issue.

I've also had a couple years of experience with the phpBB software and it does allow you to attach picture-ranks (like stars for instance) to indicate a person's contribution to the forum. Here's an example...

The admin of this board can access these at the following link if they're at all interested: http://www.phpbb.com/phpBB/catdb.php?cat=21

[Engineer]

However, there are some that will "feel better" since they are further advanced then a Conrail engineer.

I hope no one is knocking Conrail engineers......

[David]

However, there are some that will "feel better" since they are further advanced then a Conrail engineer.

I hope no one is knocking Conrail engineers......

OH NO!--nothing like that--Simply stated, some people, especially the younger ones, will feel that since they have more stars, a higher rank (Engineer, Conductor...or whatever word system is used) will feel that their comments and input will out weigh the expertise of those that are truly experts here and those experts include train engineers, historians with years of experience/knowledge, conductors, the older groups of railroad fans, etc.

[SubwaySurface]

Well nobody's opinion or input should be overshadowed by anybody. There's plenty of room for everybody's input here. I mean, we're all self-acclaimed experts in various specific subjects.