Forum Rankings

[jammyjames]

Concise description:

• Give each forum member rankings based on post counts

Specifics/Details:

• Most forums seem to have some form of ranking, for instance the car forum I'm part of you gain "status" as such from posting.
• For having X - X posts you are a junior etc, then you become a hero etc etc...

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Nifty little addition that i'm sure wouldn't be that hard to do.

[Swifte]

Not a bad idea. Would this kind of change have to come from phpBB, though?

[IcePack]

Not a bad idea. Would this kind of change have to come from phpBB, though?

There are plenty of these readily available.

[Falkomagno]

what about spamming?

[agentcom]

what about spamming?

I don't care for a rating system that is just based on # of posts. There's another suggestion recently about having members "Like" posts. If the rating system was based on "likes" I would be more in favor of it.

[rdsrds2120]

what about spamming?

I don't care for a rating system that is just based on # of posts. There's another suggestion recently about having members "Like" posts. If the rating system was based on "likes" I would be more in favor of it.

Me too. Something similar to Google's +1 system would be ideal, I think.

-rd

[IcePack]

what about spamming?

I don't care for a rating system that is just based on # of posts. There's another suggestion recently about having members "Like" posts. If the rating system was based on "likes" I would be more in favor of it.

Me too. Something similar to Google's +1 system would be ideal, I think.

-rd

There is a system already existing that lets you "like" users, and show how + or - people have placed on them. it allows you to do one + or - a day i think.
ALthough I'm not aware of anything like this for each post.

IcePack

[Army of GOD]

I guess this can go hand in hand with nietzsche's +1/-1 post suggestion.

[PLAYER57832]

This has been suggested quite a few times before. It is rejected because while CC is happy to host forums, they are not its primary purpose. Also, any such ranking might encourage abuse.

A couple of people have had unofficial rankings in this regard, though.

[agentcom]

This has been suggested quite a few times before. It is rejected because while CC is happy to host forums, they are not its primary purpose. Also, any such ranking might encourage abuse.

A couple of people have had unofficial rankings in this regard, though.

Yeah, I agree with this to an extent. I don't really care about forum rankings all that much. But I also wouldn't mind it if they existed as long as there was some merit to the process (i.e. it was based on the substance not quantity of posts).

For me, it would be convenient shorthand to see if people generally post out well thought out, coherent posts. Of course, you'd always have some "-1s" just for disagreeing with you, but I would assume that good contributors would generally float to the top.

[zimmah]

what about spamming?

I don't care for a rating system that is just based on # of posts. There's another suggestion recently about having members "Like" posts. If the rating system was based on "likes" I would be more in favor of it.

the best way would be a combination of number of post and quality of those post (number of likes). maybe even a percentage of likes to posts. this way you know immediately how good the average quality of a forum poster is, or at least how much he adds to the community with his posts in general.

each post (in the regular not off-topic forums) will have a like/dislike bar and every user who is not forumbanned or on each others ignore list (to prevent mass-downvoting foes just because) the dislike bar will be shown in each post if the dislike bar is not equal to 0 (but subtly). each user can also have a reputation under his posts, which shows the balance of likes/dislikes. an user with 70 votes and 3 downvotes will have 67 reputation. A ranking will be decided based on reputation divided by number of posts. alternative ratings may be given simply by number of posts.

off course the off-topic forums should not count.

[squishyg]

what about spamming?

I don't care for a rating system that is just based on # of posts. There's another suggestion recently about having members "Like" posts. If the rating system was based on "likes" I would be more in favor of it.

the best way would be a combination of number of post and quality of those post (number of likes). maybe even a percentage of likes to posts. this way you know immediately how good the average quality of a forum poster is, or at least how much he adds to the community with his posts in general.

each post (in the regular not off-topic forums) will have a like/dislike bar and every user who is not forumbanned or on each others ignore list (to prevent mass-downvoting foes just because) the dislike bar will be shown in each post if the dislike bar is not equal to 0 (but subtly). each user can also have a reputation under his posts, which shows the balance of likes/dislikes. an user with 70 votes and 3 downvotes will have 67 reputation. A ranking will be decided based on reputation divided by number of posts. alternative ratings may be given simply by number of posts.

off course the off-topic forums should not count.

It absolute should. Participation is participation. The off topics posters contribute more than the people who make baseless C&A accusations.

[chapcrap]

The off topics posters contribute more than the people who make baseless C&A accusations.

Opinion.

Off Topics and baseless accusors contribute the same in my book.

[Woodruff]

A couple of people have had unofficial rankings in this regard, though.

This is true. For instance, I ranked myself #1.

[Woodruff]

what about spamming?

I don't care for a rating system that is just based on # of posts. There's another suggestion recently about having members "Like" posts. If the rating system was based on "likes" I would be more in favor of it.

the best way would be a combination of number of post and quality of those post (number of likes). maybe even a percentage of likes to posts. this way you know immediately how good the average quality of a forum poster is, or at least how much he adds to the community with his posts in general.

each post (in the regular not off-topic forums) will have a like/dislike bar and every user who is not forumbanned or on each others ignore list (to prevent mass-downvoting foes just because) the dislike bar will be shown in each post if the dislike bar is not equal to 0 (but subtly). each user can also have a reputation under his posts, which shows the balance of likes/dislikes. an user with 70 votes and 3 downvotes will have 67 reputation. A ranking will be decided based on reputation divided by number of posts. alternative ratings may be given simply by number of posts.

off course the off-topic forums should not count.

It absolute should. Participation is participation. The off topics posters contribute more than the people who make baseless C&A accusations.

Absolutely. It's silly that they don't count for the post total as it is.

[greenoaks]

it might encourage to's to update their tournaments more often

[patrickaa317]

I think the post rankings should only count things in cc related forums (i.e. Tournaments, clans, suggestions, training academy, etc.) Also, I think only public posts should count, no user group discussions pieces.

Why should OT posters get a higher rank than those who are discussing something related to the gameplay on the site? Same goes with all the mud flinging that happens in C&A.

To me some of the people that post the most actually say the least.

[squishyg]

The off topics posters contribute more than the people who make baseless C&A accusations.

Opinion.

Off Topics and baseless accusors contribute the same in my book.

Thank goodness you were here to explain that I was expressing my opinion!