Bitcoin Forum

I've heard a few times that the Legendary rank doesn't cut it any more, that there are too many members of this rank which totally discredits it, and that there will be even more such members over time. The latter can hardly be argued against. In this manner, folks have been suggesting adding a new rank (grandmaster, admin, mythical, whatever). I think this will only further confuse the issue. We already have a few varieties of members (just members, junior members, full members, senior members). I propose a different approach which consists in gradual increase in the activity level required for every rank, so that some users wouldn't end up stripped off of their current rank. For example, Hero member right now requires activity of 480. After implementing the change, it would first require 494, then 508, and up to, say, 960...

What do you guys/gals think?

I think this is a decent idea (considering that the forum is aging and it's based on duration) that should be coupled with more changes before being labeled as a'revamp'.

I'd like to combine that with either with changing the names of the ranks, and/or adding some newer ones. The system does feel a little dull to me, especially after one reaches 'Legendary'.

The ranks should just follow the existing pattern of doubling the activity each time. Legendary should be made achievable at 960 then the next rank at 1920 and so on.

I also like that idea to create another category which will be the most higher of the members and that category will be only for those members who will the most trusted members of this forum so that people will easily recognize the most trusted members of the members and we will not need any guarantee from a third party while dealing with them.

The reputation system, specifically a users trust rating is there for this very reason. It helps distinguish users that have *proven* to be at least somewhat trustworthy from the random people on the forum. Adding specific ranks for *trusted* members may end up being problematic. If such a member scams someone in any way or form, they're likely going to blame the forum (staff) for giving them that rank. In addition to that, it creates a lot more stressful workload for the forum staff (deciding who is really trustworthy isn't as easy as some think).

Exactly. You shouldn't be trusting people based on a rank anyway. You can take it into consideration but having staff implement a trusted badge or rank of whatever sort is only going to lead to abuse and a false sense of security.

Apropos duration, what about login time? Maybe some sort of endurance rank?
Saw few high rank users with activity just above post count (farmers) their online time must be tiny, there should be something to give justice for those who sit here and observe/read, not only posts or activity should be a factor. 

That won't work either since it can be easily cheated with an auto-refresh plugin.

as someone corrected me in another thread, there really aren't that many legendaries and you have to be very consistent to get there. not many people stick around in a forum for over two years and keep the activity up.

saying that, I think it would be cool if the most tenacious posters did get some higher ranks. you'd know they were here for the serious long haul. I still wouldn't trust one without verification. all it takes is one little password to get in and wreak havoc.

It has been some years since  this forum created so with every day new legendary accounts join among us.  Soon most of us will be legendaries. It would be nice to add another rank after legendary. Like legendary-plus :p I support that one.

I don't think it is a good idea either to have half the forum promoted to a Legendary rank at some point in the future. In regard to keeping the activity level doubled for each rank, that shouldn't be an issue. If we decide to keep the existing schedule of increasing the activity by 14 points every other week, we would only need to increase the activity threshold for higher ranks more often (or rather less often for lower ranks). For example, incrementing the activity level required for a Senior Member by 14 would in this case require 4 weeks, within which the threshold for reaching a Hero Member rank will be increased two times by 28 in total (14+14). In this way, we will have the new activity levels set to 254 and 254x2=508, or 240+14 and 480+14+14, for Senior and Hero members, respectively...

Please note that I'm talking only about increasing the activity levels required for reaching the next rank, not about the activity itself, which will get increased as per usual, i.e. every two weeks by 14 points

in order to make things interesting for legendary users it advisable to have some changes in the star signs or another rank which can be used for long term users should be VETERAN  this rank must be given based on the activity level as well as a voting system between the admin or the staff members and make a bench mark which cannot be gained easily to this user class, how about this suggestion folks.

I see this problematic in the long run as you end up having a lot of people labeled in a specific rank that is supposed to be *rare*, e.g. legendary (note: How long this is going to take is debatable).

No, the word soon is wrong here. I've seen a lot of people state this, and yet it isn't even close to happening.

Progressively increasing the activity levels would probably be a more accurate description of what you're suggesting.

Staff votes on Veteran rank for user X -> User X scams group of people Y -> Group of people Y blame staff for promoting user X. No thanks.

No matter what the system, eventually a lot of people will reach the highest status. If I'm not mistaken it takes years to reah legendary, so it's not easy feat. If there are a lot of people with legendary, than that means there's a lot of activity on this site, and the site is not that young anymore.

if they have a long term plan to maintain this forum for a few more years then they should think about a better system,either they have to revamp the activity level which is not possible since everyone will be affected,one thing they can do is create new ranking level and combine the hours online as well as the reported post accuracy along with the activity level and implement the new ranking levels like you see in elite torrent sites.

sounds good give the forum something new and more important ranks would be nice.

Can I become a hero member now? if I promise to post daily for the next 6 months or so?

We should have a ranking system working like t hat.

That'll only encourage more people to spam the forum with useless posts if ranks are achieved like that. The current ranking system is doing fine. Adding another rank or maybe even incentives to legendary and up members would be great.

On a side track: I really dislike seeing Hero or even Legendary members with big fat Red Trust. I'd like to suggest dropping one rank for each Red Trust from a DT-member. If a user can't be trusted at all, he should be a Newbie, even with 1000+ Activity.

This is like having thousands of Legendary members sticking around the forum, only in reverse order (but still negative in respect to forum reputation). How can someone possibly be a newbie if he has been active for many years in the forum? The latter is as discrediting as the former, though in a different way. And what should the staff do if all accusations have been removed or otherwise invalidated? To raise his rank to Hero or Legendary again?

Trust is trust while activity is activity (bad or good), and they shouldn't be mixed or confused

Yeah I don't like the idea that some people get Legendary before other people with the same amount of activity. It should just be set at double each time. I also feel like some Legendaries don't deserve their rank and they are very unknowledgeable.

Just not liking it is not enough, you should actually get there to truly feel it in full measure


I would still stick to gradual. Both gradual and progressive mean essentially the same thing, i.e. a steady change. But unlike the latter, the former has also a connotation of making increases in small elaborate stages or steps. The reason being that a careless increase in the activity thresholds may cause some members to lose their current rank due to the activity level required for it surpassing their current activity, which I specifically mentioned in the OP. Even if promotion to a rank was a one-way ticket, metaphorically speaking, it would still look rather strange and most likely raise a lot of confusion between members as well...

Ultimately, I will accept whatever it should be called provided this proposal gets accepted at all

Well I know that my one word won't be enough to change the whole ranking system. I doubt the ranking system will ever change though. But we can all hope.

I think the current rank system is perfect and there's no need to revamp it.What about increasing the time of updating the activity period from 14 days to 28 or 30 days?

You are right about that, and it doesn't matter much. I just wanted to point it out because it may make some people think you're suggested an instant jump (in case they don't read all the posts in the thread).

If you make a compelling case and suggest a noticeable improvement over the current one, I don't see why not.

Nothing is perfect, and this system is far from it.

No.

Theymos will actually listen if you're not just negative and actually suggesting something.

Um... Why? Activity is meant to be 1 for every day, and 14 days is enough for a user to get back online. Simple.

Okay, let's wait and see. I hope the changes proposed here won't be implemented before I become a Legendary Member myself. I somehow sympathize with the low-rank low-activity members who are thinking that only Legendary Members will benefit if this system of increasing activity levels (or something similar to it) starts off for real. But, on the hand, the activity level required for reaching, say, a Hero Member rank looks really ridiculous by now, so a major overhaul of the current system seems to be long due and overdue...


I'm curious who opted for being the Legend in the poll

I agree with you, Users who contribute to this site on a daily basis deserve to have a higher than than those who don't.

- I just started reading this thread.

Whoa, whoa. Isn't there a problem here, though?

If it takes 4 weeks to increase the Sr. Member activity requirement by 14 and we keep the "doubling" formula, wouldn't it be impossible to reach Hero Member? (Since the requirement increases as equally as the activity given to members directly).

It would be +14 to the activity requirement for Hero Members every fortnight, but that's equal to how much activity you receive.

Wouldn't it be better to just have a flat rate of adding 14 to the requirement every 4 weeks? (And as you suggested, to the cap of 2x the current requirements)

---

And now, to change the brainstormed idea.


Your previous incremental idea is feasible, I think... But would an increase of 7 activity points to the required amount per rank be better? Older members should only notice it slightly, but this could be a way to block out farmed accounts and the flooding of (Jr.) Member scammers.

(Again, at a flat rate for each rank, instead of having the same doubling formula, otherwise ranks would be impossible to reach until the increments are capped)


Most likely not a legendary member.

---

The point is not to increment the activity levels indefinitely. After reaching, for example, 960 for a Hero Member rank (480 for Sr. Member, and so forth), the system could be slowed down significantly or halted completely until the next overhaul. On the other hand, there shouldn't be a lot of issues if the activity levels get incremented in a constant but slow fashion (say, once per month) to keep up with forum aging. As I see it, the system has a lot of room for both improvement and tweaking...

But I think that the doubling pattern should be preserved


That, in fact, could be a beneficial side effect. That is, no more new Hero or Legendary members for some time

I also like the idea that introducing more rank after the legendary would be good.The reason why i am saying this because as the time will increase we will see more and more members becoming legendary.Not many right now because forum that too old.But with time alot of hero members would become legendary and it would keep happening and for those who are already legendary right now wont have any progress.In 1-2 years may be i would also become a legendary and those who are legendary at this time will stay the same.But that would be unfare on them.

we have a lot of full/senior members tho +/- hero. after implementation of this doubling idea we will have many legendary members but no one will care anymore since we will have a rare one just after it (mystical or whatever...) and so on :)

Nobody claimed otherwise; this sentence is redundant.

So what's the point of having such 'uniquely' named ranks when you end up with a lot of people wearing them? OP's idea is a good choice IMO.

Pardon me if I haven't understood OP's idea clearly but wouldn't it be unfair for the people who waited this long to become a hero member, only to realize that it is going to take much more longer to achieve something which was achieved by the others in a short span of time compared to them.

There is never going to be a solution to this that is "fair" for everyone. Users should not really care that much about having to wait a while longer for a particular rank, and if they are, it is likely for the wrong reasons (e.g. higher tier in signature campaigns). One could make it so that the gradual increase takes longer(e.g. which would make it like a 'transitional period'), ergo it would be a period in which the activity growth still outpaces the increase in activity required per rank. However, this would only mildly help those cases.

I don't think that it will be tremendously unfair, if at all. Look, Legendary members have already reached the highest rank in the forum member hierarchy (I don't consider special ranks like founders, donators, etc), so they are essentially out of the equation altogether. All other members will be in the same conditions, if I don't miss something. If a new rank is added, then we are all basically in the same boat. In this way, I pretty much don't see how it can be "unfair". Though it looks like there are two three Legends already...

But there can be only one

What? That goes against what the activity ranking system is even supposed to be. Oh, so you're promising that you'll post for the next 6 months? Words mean nothing. You're someone behind an anonymous account on the Internet, dishing out rewards to people who haven't done anything to get them wouldn't be smart. That's exactly like taking out a loan for $500 to someone on the Internet and promising that you'll pay them back, $5 a day, until you've repaid them.

Don't be impatient. Realize that the reward comes after the work, and if you can't handle that then you shouldn't be handing out empty promises for things you can't achieve.

Agree,but instead of the usual activity points earning for posts,a better system should be introduced to rank up higher.Here's what I can recommend.
  -The user gets ranked up if he has successfully reported 500 posts with 90%+ of accuracy.
  -Have successfully busted scams and or connected more than 10 alt accounts on the forum.
  -Posted more than 20 constructive comments in bitcoin technical support section.
 
These are just a few examples! Something similar could be implemented and the ranking up process to the newly introduced level should be done manually after admis/mods are satisfied with a "xyz"user.

Good idea but this would call for revamping the trust system first which is also very faulty

You mean to rank up higher than legendary?

This one would actually be useful for the forum and 'mean something', ergo I concur.

I disagree with this as it would involve manual work from an admin. The first one can be automated, which is one of the reasons I agree with it.

Same reasoning as the one above. The current administration is busy as it is (even with Cyrus on board).

---

I think the first part of your suggestion in combination with what OP is suggesting would be a nice idea to start with.

No, it would not require a revamp of the trust system.

Would not people actually go ranked down in this process?

Yes, provided they're inactive.

If you're active, you would stay at your current rank. Isn't that more of an incentive ?

Yeah, that seems to be another, totally unintended side effect well worth to be considered separately. I guess that minor members (lol) could even end up being demoted to a lower rank if they stay latent long enough, and demotion is not taken care of (read specifically prevented) by the forum engine...

I'm curious what other unforeseen effects such a system might have


Here you must run as fast as you can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast

I guess a measure could be implemented to prevent the de-ranking of users if that's desirable. However, I actually don't see that as a bad thing as long as the parameters are right (e.g. slow enough).

As long as pros outweigh cons this is fine.

I like this idea. The trick lies in how gradual the increase in activity requirement for a particular rank should be.

This would also be better than creating new ranks, because it is a one-time process. Creating a new rank leads to questions on what should be the signature restrictions for that rank, the name of the rank, coins/badges, etc.
Maybe it is time to revamp the rank system along with the new forum rollout?  :)

Could you please specify at least one way in which signature campaign managers might get confused? The whole idea of this proposal is to keep users tied to their current rank for a longer period of time (thereby making fewer promotions to a higher rank per unit of time). If the users don't get "downgraded" to a lower rank, there shouldn't be a single issue in this respect...

In fact, it would most certainly contribute to less confusion, if there is any at all

Both points make no sense since, for example, the Legendary rank doesn't depend on user's activity within the known range. You will see a lot of Legendary members who have less activity than me, but I am still only a Hero member (as of writing this post). On the other hand, if a campaign manager would be looking for high-ranked members, you would naturally expect him to look at their current rank, not their activity


I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyways, we are all essentially in the same boat, not just new or low-ranked users

As the activity levels required for different ranks keep getting higher, people who attain them at a later point of time will spend more time in each level. Again it all boils down to how gradual the increase in activity levels for attaining a particular level is.

Yes, that is the whole idea behind my proposal. And people with higher ranks will spend even more time till reaching the next rank. In fact, this is how the ranking system works right now. For example, to reach a Hero member rank you will need twice as much time than for reaching a Senior member rank, from a preceding rank. The new system simply extends these times. The question is whether this extension should be made slow but indefinite (permanent) or somewhat less slow but with a fixed limit in respect to activity requirements (say, 960 for a new Hero member)...

Personally, I would go for the first option

Won't this just create more spamming by members who don't want to get demoted.

I think it would be better if posts in certain threads and boards were not counted. Gambling for example. Also posts in threads with more than (say) 200 replies could be ignored. This may reduce the bumping of tired old threads that clutter some boards.

Personally, I don't think that reduction in rank is a good idea either


This doesn't feel quite right since instead of a number of posts made on the forum, we would essentially have a number of posts made in specific boards. Bumping old threads could be prevented by locking them, but this wouldn't in the least prevent from creating new ones. We already have two multi page threads about Gold vs Bitcoin in the Economics section, totally useless each. In fact, not counting posts in them would only lead to creating more such threads

about tread that is something different you will always have 2 that are same or similar with topic this can be reduced yes
in gambling you have something completely different most are based on sport and certain league so this is hard
on other section i dont know how it is i didnt see but the fact is for this is will take time for it