Participation minirank post count change.

[Hamouze]

There's no point in a minirank if you get it after posting 3 times. It's annoying seeing people with 20 post count have like 4 miniranks. It's a scam waiting to happen, being used as a symbol of trust. It encourages short term participation in the section and nothing else.

Here are my suggestions:
-5 posts, keep the minirank for 1 day after the 5th post
-25 posts, keep the minirank for 1 week after the 25th post
-100 posts, keep the minirank for 1 month after the 100th post
-500 posts, keep the minirank for 6 months after the 500th post

You can all make or add suggestions too, I just completely disagree with this current "tweak" that y'all made. This low number is not good.

 

Mini-ranks in themselves are not symbols of trust at all unlike regular ranks.

Doubt a system like what you suggested would be implemented but perhaps the current number of posts could be tweaked to make them slightly less common if there are too many of them.

Which in particular do you think are too common?

 

[Hamouze]

Mini-ranks in themselves are not symbols of trust at all unlike regular ranks.

Doubt a system like what you suggested would be implemented but perhaps the current number of posts could be tweaked to make them slightly less common if there are too many of them.

Which in particular do you think are too common?

Obviously, but new people to the site won't understand that and will just trust the newfags with 50 pc and 6 miniranks.

What I suggested wasn't really a system, just a tweak to the post count. The larger ones might not be possible but I definitely disagree with 3 posts for a minirank for a week.

All of them are very common right now, all you gotta do is look for the new people with < 100 posts aka most likely to be banned/scammers and you'll see all the miniranks.

 

http://www.sythe.org/denied-suggestions/1692024-permanent-participation-miniranks.html

Matthew is set in his way of thinking.

 

It's true participation mini ranks shouldn't be handed out just like that.

I don't, however, support, your suggestions.

The amount of posts required to receive those mini ranks should be increased highly.

 

[Hamouze]

http://www.sythe.org/denied-suggestions/1692024-permanent-participation-miniranks.html

Matthew is set in his way of thinking.

I'm not suggesting permanent miniranks. The way the system is right now after the update a few days ago is 3 posts gives you a minirank for a week. That's just plain (and I say this in the most scholarly way possible) stupid. The post requirement has to increase significantly.

 

Why would a new member immediately think it's a form of trust? They'll have no idea what mini ranks are. And I wouldn't say mini ranks are a sign of real trust lol.

 

I'm not suggesting permanent miniranks. The way the system is right now after the update a few days ago is 3 posts gives you a minirank for a week. That's just plain (and I say this in the most scholarly way possible) stupid. The post requirement has to increase significantly.

I'm aware, but posting more for a permanant minirank and posting more for it to be extended are similar suggestions. I agree with you, but regardless of the support you get it'll be up to Matthew.

 

[Hamouze]

Why would a new member immediately think it's a form of trust? They'll have no idea what mini ranks are. And I wouldn't say mini ranks are a sign of real trust lol.

I'm aware, but posting more for a permanant minirank and posting more for it to be extended are similar suggestions. I agree with you, but regardless of the support you get it'll be up to Matthew.

Ok so let me just make this clear, the whole intro was just a side note about the potential for scamming. Whether you agree or disagree with that or my exact number of suggestions, my point is that 3-5 posts is not a good way to get miniranks. I'd prefer the previous broken system to this. I'm only responding to like a thread absent mindedly or randomly and I have a minirank in almost all of the sections when I'm not even trying. That's not real "participation".

 

It's a participation rank, not really a mini rank. The user can hover over the rank and it shows participant.

 

I don't think we should target the system specifically if members are getting fooled into believing they hold some sort of market significance. Especially when there is a hover caption stating it's a participant minirank.

 

[Hamouze]

I don't think we should target the system specifically if members are getting fooled into believing they hold some sort of market significance. Especially when there is a hover caption stating it's a participant minirank.

Welcome back.

I made it pretty clear, I'm targetting the fact that it takes absolutely no effort to get them. You might as well give everyone all the participation miniranks if all it takes is 3 posts... I don't see what was wrong with the previous system or more posts.

 

Welcome back.

I made it pretty clear, I'm targetting the fact that it takes absolutely no effort to get them. You might as well give everyone all the participation miniranks if all it takes is 3 posts... I don't see what was wrong with the previous system or more posts.

Thanks

Making the participant ranks easy to get keeps specific forums consistent in activity. If you increase the requirements, you also increase the amount of spam. Your supporting argument is that newcomers indirectly abuse the participant ranks to garner some level of ignorant trust in the market. In that instance, it's not the system that is at fault, it's the ignorance of those who believe the ranks have a different meaning.

I'm not opposed to a different system. I just don't think it should be that hard to get, and the duration of keepsake linger for such a long time.

 

[Lilmj27]

Mini-ranks in themselves are not symbols of trust at all unlike regular ranks.

Doubt a system like what you suggested would be implemented but perhaps the current number of posts could be tweaked to make them slightly less common if there are too many of them.

Which in particular do you think are too common?

Look at my miniranks, I've barely posted in some of those sections and yet I have the rank, it just feels a little to easy

I personally support this

 

Just put em back like they were, there was no issue with the previous numbers.

 

I'm not suggesting permanent miniranks. The way the system is right now after the update a few days ago is 3 posts gives you a minirank for a week. That's just plain (and I say this in the most scholarly way possible) stupid. The post requirement has to increase significantly.

It depends on the section. Rs is 5 posts per week. Some of the numbers could use some tweaking though - which sections in particular do you think need raising/lowering?

 

[Hamouze]

It depends on the section. Rs is 5 posts per week. Some of the numbers could use some tweaking though - which sections in particular do you think need raising/lowering?

Just go back to the original system.

TBH I can easily post 5 times in like 2 minutes. And then the minirank stays for a week... It's not much of an incentive for long term participation.

 

Just go back to the original system.

TBH I can easily post 5 times in like 2 minutes. And then the minirank stays for a week... It's not much of an incentive for long term participation.

The old system where participation mini-ranks were virtually non-existant...

That's not gonna happen, some middle ground can be found however.

 

[Almighty So]

I support OP

 

[Iamramon]

Well honestly isn't it the customers own judgement to know if someone were trusted or not? I mean, I suggested to only allow trusted people to sell accounts, and they said it was a free market and customers should be responsible for their actions...

same thing goes here. Shouldn't people be responsible for their actions and know that miniranks do not indicate any level of trust? Also, I don't think I'd ever trust anyone more than another person just because he has a "participation minirank" lol.