|
Post by Willie Gunn on Sept 19, 2007 22:40:37 GMT
Nope sent none recieved none
|
|
Q-n-Q
Active Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by Q-n-Q on Sept 19, 2007 22:44:04 GMT
Not that then (did u catch 4 fish lol)
|
|
salmondan
Active Member
There's always a chance!
Posts: 324
|
Post by salmondan on Sept 19, 2007 22:44:05 GMT
What is the Karma funtion? I see I have 4, where is the Sutra to go with it? Once you get 1000000 karma points you get an "S", 2000000 a "U" and so forth. ;D When you reach the ultimate goal, you will no doubt have died and gone to heaven (please feel free to substitute heaven for the nirvana of your choice ) so will not require karma points in any case and will be enjoying spiritual kama sutra every day for all eternity. I hope this has helped brother.... And now, we meditate (or should that be medicate?)
|
|
salmo
Advisory Board
Posts: 1,814
|
Post by salmo on Sept 19, 2007 22:48:13 GMT
Re. Star rating and name hierarchy. At the moment we each have only one star against our names but, as the number of posts each person submits increases so the star rating will also increase. This can sometimes result in competitions between some of the less serious members to jack up the number of posts to get to the next 'star' level. As a result even sensible fishing related topics may be hi-jacked and turned into a series of one line (or even one word or single smiley) replies. The result is a lowering of the quality of debate and disruption of many otherwise interesting topics. I suggest that the number of posts required to progress to more than one 'star' be set at an impossibly high level - say 100,000- in order to avoid the kind of problems noted above. It might be useful though if the administrator had the maximum number of stars as this would help to focus the members attention on any administrative postings. The same argument applies to having a name hierarchy - Lurker, Poacher etc. and I think it would be useful if we were all called just plain old 'Member'. Again the only exceptions might be the administrator or any of his team of advisers when posting in their official capacity. Dave. Yes it can be switched off. The settings are defaulted. Good point about quality but I believe we should also value wit as well as rigour in this fishing hut. Number of posts does demonstrate commitment if they are constructive. My initial preference would be to consider adopting some bigger bands. Feedback? salmo
|
|
salmondan
Active Member
There's always a chance!
Posts: 324
|
Post by salmondan on Sept 19, 2007 22:59:08 GMT
Please forgive my ignorance, what are bigger bands?
Edit, I might have worked it out, do you mean greater steps between levels? So the difference between poacher and the next level (for example) would be 1000 posts instead of 100 posts?
|
|
Q-n-Q
Active Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by Q-n-Q on Sept 19, 2007 23:05:42 GMT
Feedback. IMHO
Leave as is Proboards have carefully considered all default settings before setting them in the first instance. It is a discussion board and to try and manipulate the discussions into a certain direction may not be a good idea (IMO). Moderators will have the power to moderate if required for flamers.
Anyone who posts just to gain stars or brownie points are only fooling themselves. Bigger bands might be a good idea as long as they are not too big causing posters to end up with the same ratings across the board.
Yes SD I think that is what is meant by greater bands
|
|
salmondan
Active Member
There's always a chance!
Posts: 324
|
Post by salmondan on Sept 19, 2007 23:19:01 GMT
Cheers QnQ. It's been a long day.
At first, I quite often took more notice of the "higher rated" SFF posters than the perceived newbies, not all the time but it seemed to point me in the direction of experience. Saying that, the posts which made the most sense to me were the ones I would follow up first, no matter who had penned them.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Stoat on Sept 19, 2007 23:37:30 GMT
Yes it can be switched off. The settings are defaulted. Good point about quality but I believe we should also value wit as well as rigour in this fishing hut. Number of posts does demonstrate commitment if they are constructive. My initial preference would be to consider adopting some bigger bands. Feedback? salmo salmo, I was not suggesting that the number of posts be disabled - just the 'stars' and the name hierarchy as these seem to be the features responsible for instilling the competitive urge into some of the members. It will still be possible to see how many posts any member has made (if that is an important consideration for anyone [?]) This was a big problem on the FFF at one time but since both features have been disabled there has been a very noticeable improvement. I have not noticed any negative effect upon the wit of the posters, humour is still present in abundance. Dave.
|
|
|
Post by John Gray on Sept 20, 2007 20:46:59 GMT
Re. Star rating and name hierarchy. At the moment we each have only one star against our names but, as the number of posts each person submits increases so the star rating will also increase. This can sometimes result in competitions between some of the less serious members to jack up the number of posts to get to the next 'star' level. As a result even sensible fishing related topics may be hi-jacked and turned into a series of one line (or even one word or single smiley) replies. The result is a lowering of the quality of debate and disruption of many otherwise interesting topics. I suggest that the number of posts required to progress to more than one 'star' be set at an impossibly high level - say 100,000- in order to avoid the kind of problems noted above. It might be useful though if the administrator had the maximum number of stars as this would help to focus the members attention on any administrative postings. The same argument applies to having a name hierarchy - Lurker, Poacher etc. and I think it would be useful if we were all called just plain old 'Member'. Again the only exceptions might be the administrator or any of his team of advisers when posting in their official capacity. Dave. Yes it can be switched off. The settings are defaulted. Good point about quality but I believe we should also value wit as well as rigour in this fishing hut. Number of posts does demonstrate commitment if they are constructive. My initial preference would be to consider adopting some bigger bands. Feedback? salmo Wit and rigour are rarely demonstrated in the posts of forum members seeking star ratings. Indeed, in a forum which places a high value on posting for posting's sake, by, for example, awarding stars in return for a given number of posts, it is quite likely that the most frequent posters will make the least contribution to a forum. In my opinion, the disabling of the star rating system can only improve the quality of forum posts.
|
|
salmo
Advisory Board
Posts: 1,814
|
Post by salmo on Sept 20, 2007 22:20:43 GMT
John and Dave, It is early days but I appreciate your comments and wisdom brought from the seat trout boards. I followed up and made a search of the most prolific posters on SFF and one particular leading poster (no prizes) had a good deal of short back slap type posts. Personally I do not have a problem with this because it is a chat room and it does demonstrates that the poster stayed active. In a community we should expect some quick chat stuff along with some detailed step by steps. The star rating based on post numbers says no more or no less than the post counts themselves. I am therefore inclined to follow your suggestion and disable this rating function. However, in the interest of fairness I will let this air a bit longer and get feedback from the advisory team and respond within 5 days. John and Dave both sound very familiar with the rating system. It is very straightforward and I will copy and paste an example if anyone wishes. salmo
|
|