topic Re: forum ranks in Community Site Feedback

forum ranks

Penny — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:02:56 GMT

I'm well aware there are other posts (like "what makes a Veteran") elsewhere on here.

The reason I've started a new topic is that I was rather unhappy to just see a newcomer* displaying the rank "hooked" : / reminiscent of "dewie snared" or whatever it was that some-other-ISP used for new users, many years back.

The word "hooked" seems somewhat derogatory, and doesn't fit with the ethos of the forum here. I should maybe point out that I'm completely "not-PC" so it's very rare for me to make such a comment.

Any chance of changing "hooked" to something else? not that I'm recommending "pilgrim" which is what the Lithium Community forum apparently uses for its newest sign-ups : /

* edited to add - just seen a "newbie" rank for someone who made a first post - not sure where "hooked" kicks in but I think it's there from 3 posts upwards (not sure how high that goes).

Re: forum ranks

Anotherone — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:19:58 GMT

Hi Penny, I've seen one poster that had hooked upto five posts, when it changed to Newbie. I can see what you mean about it possibly being offensive. New sign-ups seemed to have been given "Just Looking" but that might be before email confirmation, as I've also seen "Browser" with 0 posts. I think it changes to hooked after the first post.
I did suggest during testing that Newbie should remain for at least the first 10 posts, but I'm sure Plusnet aren't going to tell us. Have you a better suggestion than Pilgrim, not too keen on that?

Re: forum ranks

Townman — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:35:31 GMT

@Penny,

I have just reviewed the "Rankings discussion thread" from the consultation process - its 8 pages long.

There was a big dynamic between keeping the 'rankings' the same as what was in the old forums and changing to something 'new', 'exciting' and 'fun' which would encourage people to make more posts! As a result there are a fair few roles to work one's way through now, which personally I feel convey nothing of too much worth.

Winning is not what's important - its taking part in the process which counts.

Re: forum ranks

spraxyt — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:42:09 GMT

Plusnet have said that time logged in also affects ranks.One can only guess but perhaps this has more influence through early history leading to apparent inconsistencies between rank and the numbers we see.

What is clear is that ranks change quite quickly in early days and maybe the words used shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Re: forum ranks

shutter — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:51:37 GMT

@spraxyt wrote:

What is clear is that ranks change quite quickly in early days and maybe the words used shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Easy enough for you to say... but I agree with Penny... "hooked" is not a very nice term, when associated with a new member or customer... it kinda smacks of "Ya.... Gotcha.... MUG..... Welcome to the world of suckers. ."

Re: forum ranks

Anotherone — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:59:45 GMT

Somebody could take offense at a Rank 'Old Codger' but you seemed happy with that

Come on, think of a better name then that fits. Here's the current list (approximately I think).

Just Looking 0 posts (unconfirmed email?)
Browser 0 posts
Hooked 1-5 posts
Newbie 6 posts to ?

Re: forum ranks

spraxyt — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:15:03 GMT

@shutter wrote:

Easy enough for you to say... but I agree with Penny... "hooked" is not a very nice term,

So you post how indignant you are about having that label .... and discover you don't have it any more.

Edited to clarify which post my reply refers to.

Re: forum ranks

Anotherone — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:03:12 GMT

Sorry, to be clear he never had it, he's what he's got, but didn't sound to happy with it in his original thread about that rank and Old Codger was one of the suggestions he could replace it with There were others but we won't mention them

Re: forum ranks

MauriceC — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:07:28 GMT

Well, I've now got the Label of 'Grafter' and that's not been true for many a year.

Still as long as I never get called late for Dinner - I'm not that fussed.

Re: forum ranks

Anotherone — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:08:47 GMT

Maurice, you should be a Community Veteran unless you prefer something else

Re: forum ranks

shutter — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:16:11 GMT

So why do you need three "ranks" for posting less than 7 times? seems a bit "extravagant... I would have thought that "newbie" would have covered them all...

As for being an "Old Codger"... perhaps I should change my "user name" to that... ....

Re: forum ranks

spraxyt — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:20:55 GMT

@MauriceC wrote:

Well, I've now got the Label of 'Grafter' and that's not been true for many a year.

@MauriceC If you get just one more "thanks" I think grafting might be in the past.

Re: forum ranks

Anotherone — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:23:38 GMT

How's that Fixed eh!

Re: forum ranks

Penny — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:41:32 GMT

@Anotherone wrote:

Hi Penny, I've seen one poster that had hooked upto five posts, when it changed to Newbie. I can see what you mean about it possibly being offensive. New sign-ups seemed to have been given "Just Looking" but that might be before email confirmation, as I've also seen "Browser" with 0 posts. I think it changes to hooked after the first post.
I did suggest during testing that Newbie should remain for at least the first 10 posts, but I'm sure Plusnet aren't going to tell us. Have you a better suggestion than Pilgrim, not too keen on that?

yes I'd seen "Just looking ..." after making the edit to the first post, didn't want to edit the post yet again and muddy the waters even further not seen "Browser", though.

liked "Just looking ..." , seems so much more friendly. "Newbie" is passable, bit like an L-plate.

As regards a possible replacement for "hooked" - no idea. "Pilgrim" clearly won't do : / just did a search for "forum ranks" on google and found some interesting stuff, however.

... I already like "Community Gaffer" for the top PN admin guys.

... and maybe "Community Guru" in place of "Community Veteran", if people don't like that.

Interim ranks are a whole lot more difficult, though - I'm guessing you guys had fun trying to sort all this lot out, initially : D

Trailblazer, Guide, Adept, Wayfinder, Mentor, Associate, Star ... the nearer-the-top ranks are probably easier, but us lower-down-people (I mean me, not you!) are difficult to label without perhaps causing annoyance - I wasn't quite saying "hooked" was "offensive" rather that it's not a label anyone would enjoy carrying, or aspire to : )

Most of the existing ranks seem fine - there would be alternatives like "Level 1" (series) or colours (series) - but less interesting, probably.

... about the only thing I can think of, as a replacement for "hooked" would be "First Level" ... (or maybe "Mezzanine Level", between "Newbie" and whatever currently follows "hooked"). I'd be surprised if someone on here couldn't find something better than either of those ; )

footnote - hadn't expected there would be so many replies since I first started writing this post! - I think Shutter summed up best what I was trying to convey, with

"hooked" is not a very nice term, when associated with a new member or customer... it kinda smacks of "Ya.... Gotcha.... MUG..... Welcome to the world of suckers. ."

Re: forum ranks

Townman — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:43:46 GMT

@Penny,

I can assure you it was not fun - I think that this issue caused a lot of soul searching debate ... and it looks like it will carry on. Personally I just do not see the merit of it - what we had previously seemed adequate.

Re: forum ranks

Anotherone — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:48:49 GMT

Maybe we should lighten up a bit and accept that it is there and try and get it bashed into a shape that we find "acceptable" rather than are particularly fond of. And of course are happy with the individual ones we end up with, and suggest alternative names for those names we don't like.

Re: forum ranks

jab1 — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:52:30 GMT

Me personally couldn't care less about 'ranks' , but I can see many people do.

The more important 'label', to me, is one which covers the contribution/expertise of the poster - for instance 'Bright Spark' for those who have made valid contributions.

You can call me what you like - it's only a 'name' anyway.

Re: forum ranks

Penny — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:17:11 GMT

@Townman wrote:

@Penny,

I can assure you it was not fun - I think that this issue caused a lot of soul searching debate ... and it looks like it will carry on. Personally I just do not see the merit of it - what we had previously seemed adequate.

... didn't mean "fun" in the literal sense ; ) just meant it probably wasn't easy. As I said before, I think most of the ranks work well; however people have made a number of comments about the 'Veteran' tag (and a few about 'Grafter'), and 'hooked' clearly shouldn't stay, so these aspects probably need to be looked at, regardless.

I realise it's probably a bit galling when you guys have clearly put a lot of time and effort into making things as good as possible, but the 99% of us who weren't part of that elite group were never likely to agree with absolutely everything that had been decided : /

So, a few things have got flagged up (not just ranks, but other stuff also) but hopefully in a constructive way. The fact that people here say what they think, is no reflection on anyone involved with the set-ups and it doesn't mean we don't appreciate what was done : )

Re: forum ranks

Anotherone — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:25:59 GMT

We did not agree with most of the Ranking stuff - what little detail we were told or could deduce from testing. Community Veteran was "accepted" by us as the best of the options that had been suggested.

Re: forum ranks

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:45:17 GMT

It could of course be argued is it even needed at all. "What's in a name" is a quote used many a time but to be honest I see no need for it. Simply by looking at the poster's details I see everything I need to know, how many posts they have made and how long they have been members, so is there really a need for categories?