User Ranks

[Enhance]

Ah.  I get it.  

Something like this:

:hiphip

:bonez

:throwdabones1: :throwdabones1:

:Frosty: :Frosty: :Frosty:

:3DN: :3DN: :3DN: :3DN:

Yep, but it would only go with the 'max' rank and would just get added on as somebody hits one of the new thresholds after the max rank is achieve. So, Scout through Wizard would stay as is. Then, since I have almost 12,500 posts, my rank might show up as:

  Enhance

:star Legend :star

But, since you're above 50,000, maybe you have the max rank at this:

                Mavric

:star :star :star :star :star Legend :star :star :star :star :star

 

[Landlord]

For the record, I've never been a big fan of a post limit to start threads. It can be a headache in a few cases but, by and large, most new members don't abuse the privilege.

I think we should apply some sort of perspective when evaluating these ranks. Case in point, I really like the current breakdown. It fits approximately 90% of our board because most people are under the 10,001 post mark. Adding additional ranks will largely feel like it's appeasing a small portion of posters, or, that it would be unattainable for the clear majority of people. Not saying I'm against change by any means. Just something to keep in mind.

One suggestion - what about adding stars or badges to the max rank based on every 1,000 posts? Sort of like a 2-star general vs. a 5-star general.

Maybe one idea instead of a post limit for new threads is a max amount of posts per day, or a higher time limit in between posts, up until a certain (low) threshold. You're right, most new members are just fine, and the ones that are the worst are the ones who spam everything nonstop immediately. I'll even use myself as an example - first messageboard I ever joined when I was 14 I made it an actual goal to try and have the most recent post in every subforum :lol:

ANYWAYS, as far as user ranks go, is there any way in the world that they could be qualitative instead of quantitative? Or categorical? Like, could they be based off of a certain upvotes to posts ratio, or could they be for specific actions and habits? Increasing just in quantity of posts seems so archaically Web 2.0, or even earlier really. Facebook, for example, has been introducing badges for things like 'Top Fans' of pages and 'Conversation Starters' in groups. And reddit of course has flair systems, which a lot of subs use for certain accomplishments or things (I have a reddit media team flair on /r/cfb because of covering B1G media days).

idk i'd like to see it be turned into something more creative and interesting.

 

[The Murphinator]

Like many of the others have stated, I feel the ranking is fine just the way it is. I like the idea of a badge or something of that nature when you reach a certain amount. I am sure you will come up with something fun and interesting.

 

[knapplc]

One suggestion - what about adding stars or badges to the max rank based on every 1,000 posts? Sort of like a 2-star general vs. a 5-star general.

I think the way the board works is you can have something appear for each rank.  Thus, I think you could do this if you have a rank at every 1,000 posts.  

The 13 dots below your user name denote your rank.  But we can change it to something other than dots.

We used to have footballs for those pips, but I can't find the graphic on the wayback machine. It was something zoogs added but I can't remember when.

 

[jsneb83]

I think anyone over 50,000 should get the rank "No-Life" 

 

[Mavric]

I think anyone over 50,000 should get the rank "No-Life"