Revamping the rank system. Again

[justspare]

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.

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.

[deisik]

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.

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

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

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

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

[justspare]

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.

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

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.

[btvGainer]

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?

[Lauda]

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

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).

I doubt the ranking system will ever change though. But we can all hope.

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

I think the current rank system is perfect and there's no need to revamp it.

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

What about increasing the time of updating the activity period from 14 days to 28 or 30 days?

No.

[Decoded]

I doubt the ranking system will ever change though. But we can all hope.

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

What about increasing the time of updating the activity period from 14 days to 28 or 30 days?

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

[deisik]

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

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).

I doubt the ranking system will ever change though. But we can all hope.

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

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...

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

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

[Atomicat]

I doubt the ranking system will ever change though. But we can all hope.

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

What about increasing the time of updating the activity period from 14 days to 28 or 30 days?

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

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.

[actmyname]

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...

- 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.

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...

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)

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

Most likely not a legendary member.

[deisik]

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...

- 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)

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

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

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

[airezx20]

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.

[snipie]

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 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).

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

[Lauda]

we have a lot of full/senior members tho +/- hero.

Nobody claimed otherwise; this sentence is redundant.

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

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.

[Joel_Jantsen]

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.

[Lauda]

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.

[deisik]

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

[bitcoin revo]

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.

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.

[Joel_Jantsen]

--snipe--

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.

[zahra4577]

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.

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

[Lauda]

Agree,but instead of the usual activity points earning for posts,a better system should be introduced to rank up higher.

You mean to rank up higher than legendary?

Here's what I can recommend.
  -The user gets ranked up if he has successfully reported 500 posts with 90%+ of accuracy.

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

 -Have successfully busted scams and or connected more than 10 alt accounts on the forum.

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.

 -Posted more than 20 constructive comments in bitcoin technical support section.

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.

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

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