Is there a reason for having a member status? (Ex: junior member, senior member) I'm assuming the more you post determines the status. Yes? No?
Yup I don't remember how many posts you need to go from "junior member" to just "member," but you reach "senior member" when you have 100 posts.
I'm not sure what you mean by member status. It could be either the user tittles, which appear below your username, or your usergroup, which controls the color of your username. There might be some confusion over this since both use the term "senior member." (note: I'm open to new user titles - below the username - if someone can make some fun, writing-oriented suggestions for them.) Basically, for user titles, there isn't currently a practical application. This is based solely on post count and has low post thresholds, though I'm not sure offhand what they are. The threshold's above might be right. Usergroups, however, are a little different and more difficult to achieve. This is what is displayed in the forum footer on the homepage: Supporter, Contributing Member, etc. Usergroups are a more important than user titles, and show a sort of status that demonstrates member credibility (reputation), member participation (post count) and member seniority (join date). It's determined by a combination of all three and essentially shows a member's collective experience in our community. Since they use three different determinant factors, it can't be easily manipulated. This serves as a way to reduce problems with new members, reward older members, and give all members a sense of which users are more respected, credible, and active. Regarding usergroups and promotional thresholds: You're promoted from a new member to the standard registered member once you've been here for 14 days and have made 20 posts. This allows you to vote in contests and post in the Writing Workshop (assume you've had 2 reviews per Workshop post). You're promoted from the registered usergroup to a Senior Member when you've been registered for 180 day have made 250 posts, and have a reputation level of 50. You're promoted from a Senior Member to a Contributing Member once you've been registered for 365 days, have made 500 posts, an have a reputation level of 200. To give a better sense of the importance of usergroups, you should know that there's just over 100 Senior Members and less than 70 Contributing Members, total. This is because of the relative difficulty of achieving the status.
i find the label 'senior member' after making only 100 posts to be very misleading... 'senior' usually implies some expertise, or at least longevity of membership... but since one can [and many do] reach 100 posts very quickly, it doesn't seem appropriate to me... there's a great difference between 100 and many thousands of posts, as well as being around here for one week, compared to being essentially a 'charter member' who's been around for years, ever since you started the site, as some of us have...
But then... Some could have lots of posts, and still not have offered anything meaningful. Some could have few posts and have done just that. So it depends. Those titles mean little, to me anyway.
I don't understand what Contributing member is supposed to mean, actually. Contribute with what? If someone could explain it would be nice.
Yeah, I'd have to agree that those are pretty low standards to meet to be granted "status" here. As a member of another, non-writing forum, I've seen the members that have posted junk just to bring up their post count. It's easy enough, I suppose, to glean who actually knows what their talking about and those who are talking out of their hineys. But there have been younger, inexperienced members who have been misguided or intentionally duped by those members who claim to be subject matter experts based upon post count. I often look to a person's post count to help me decide if I should take a person seriously or not. Think of it this way; a best-selling author could be lurking or trolling in here and could respond to a newbies post, only to get squashed by the "post whore" because the author's post count is only in the teens. I believe a review of a high post count members contributions to the forums should be considered. If they are no-nonsense and have furthered the community, they should be granted a "Grand Poobah" status, or something. Perhaps a member of the month contest where peers can nominate someone and it's put to vote by the community. The reward, whatever it could be, may be a way to filter the BS'ers from those who actually know something. Those who have shown leadership, who have mentored the rookies, and fostered a learning environment should, IMO, wield more clout than a "contributing member" with a high post count and no talent.
I completely agree, especially now that I've implemented the senior member status that actually has multiple requirements (see above). It's one of those things I've always intended to change but never have for lack of quality alternatives. Once I come up with good alternatives, hopefully several different levels/titles, I'll update it. Contributing to the community. They've been here a while, contribute through posts, and have made many quality posts (as evident through the reputation threshold). Ideally I'd like titles that are writing-related terms to replace the current ones.
There should be a contributing reviewer (aside from Site Moderator) title for those who had reviewed 500 (or a little less) stories/poems/screenplays, etc., each with at lest a certain amount of word count on the board to ensure quality. I guess it will somehow definite the willful reviewers from the ones who do not wish to review much. (It's just a suggestion).
so, how about my suggestions?... something like that wouldn't have any misleading 'expertise' connotations and they can easily be ranked based on the number of posts made...
I do like this idea, but only if I can set up a way to factor in the quality of the review (based on post count). I'd love it if I could account for the quality of the review and the frequency of review, resulting in the Contributing Reviewer title only applying to X reviews of X quality in the past X days. We can't set this up by default but it is on the wishlist and should happen eventually. They're definitely better than the current ones. I'll mull it over. I'd like to come up with 6-10 good titles, ideally relevant to writing.
If I may offer some suggestions... For the general population types: Writer; Novelist; Scribe For the poet types: Poet; Versifier; Wordsmith; Bard For the lyricist types: Librettist; Songwriter; Composer For the best critique types: Reviewer; Commentator; Censor; Judge For the play writers: Playwright; Dramatist; Tragedian; Screenwriter (You could annotate level of expertise by adding the titles Apprentice, Craftsman, Journeyman, Master and Grand-Master.) For instance, if there's a member who is a journalist by trade, they could - in theory - be called a Journeyman Writer, I suppose. The problem I see with this is HOW to relate the "rank" to the individual... I guess if you could add a field to the member profile that would ask what styles of writing the member does/enjoys/is curious about/wants to improve the most. You already ask if someone is published or not. These could all help assign value to a member’s contribution. Say a member who is interested in fiction writing, has met the prerequisites, has posted several quality (as judged by the moderators) critiques, and posts most frequently in the Novel forum. Well, they would be (based on posting trends - which I am sure can be tracked) an Apprentice Scribe or some such (based upon longevity). But, hey, what do I know… I’ve been a member less than 30 days, I’ve only 20-ish posts, no critiques (it’s hard for me to tell someone what or how to improve when I couldn’t tell you the difference between an adjective and a prepositional phrase), and two blog posts… I hope I haven't wasted your time.
the labels we're discussing here, atavist, are for awarding based on the number of posts a member has under his/her belt, not for what they write... daniel... how about something like: scribbler memo jotter note passer journal keeper query-sender author wordmeister
LOL, If seeing 'Senior Member' is seen as misleading maybe then maybe you should broaden your criteria. When I am looking to see how valuable a member's contribution to the site has been in the past I consider a number of factors. Namely User Title, Reputation and Post Count. If a user has quite a high post count you can usually deduct that they have been around for quite a while and know their stuff, combine this with a good looking reputation level and you can come to a pretty conclusive opinion. The title of 'Senior Member' should be the least of the sites functional worries.
Sorry, this is sort of off topic, but what are the green things under our title and how do you get more or less of them?
I hope im not included in the type of people who post just to raise the post count. Cause i make alot of posts, without trying to spam and talk too much. I want to be taken seriously.
Reputation my friend and the good old pals floating around here pass that along to you. And just to note, Senior is not a very good term I agree. Like I have been here for a while(longer than nov 2010 as my thing says) and do consider myself senior. But I only have 408(409 now I guess.) posts. I don'ts nos.
Haha, thanks for trying, but I still don't understand how you get it or for what reason. I realize this is probably a stupid question, but this is the first forum I have actively been apart of, so I am not cultured in these ways. Edit: Never mind, I read about it in the FAQ, I should have known it was there.
