The one thing I don't like about this new system is that I've been a member since 2007 and I still need to establish myself, again. Whats the reason for this? I've been here for over 6 years and that's not enough establishment?
The old measurement of "establishment" was based on quantity, not quality (14 days and 25 posts). The requirement for being established has not changed, just the measurement for what that is has. There were over 16,000 established members on the first day because all positive rep was imported as likes.
I agree with comanche82. I can see if people were abusing the system then they should be punished but for people like me who use it for what it was intended for shouldnt have to re-establish themselves.
The old way of determining who is a contributing member was flawed at best (and often caused more problems than it solved like members posting pointless gibberish to get to 25 posts).
I agree with the old way of having to post 25 times was a waste and definitely did not help adding good quality content to the site. Besides for the new system, I do like the new look of the site.
We are always open to suggestions if you have ideas of how to determine who contributing members are (assuming of course it's an actually suggestion that could be applied across the board to all users, and not something just you want applied to yourself... hehe).
While that's clearly a well thought out suggestion, I don't see that happening. You think if someone should be able to comes on, posts a bunch of spam and they tell their friends decide to like it (and they do). They get to be "established" before moderators cleaned it up and deleted the spam (and therefore nullifying the likes received)... you think they should automatically get to stay established because they were established for a 2 minute window before moderators cleaned up their spam?
Since you are open to suggestions, I am having my words here. The tendency to slide over to "quality" rather than the "quantity" is good! But, now the quality is determined ONLY by "3" likes. How are we making sure that the 3 likes be ALWAYS qualitative? Even if the moderators make sure that the 3 likes are quality ones, does it mean that he/she is a contributing member? Say, I am having 3 likes and I just log in only once in a month to get what i need and I do not post anything and there is another friend who has just 1 like but he posts daily which are not just craps, then who is the most contributing member here? Why cant this "contributing" member be defined based on what we do on this forum? Each and everything we do on this forum should count like some metric based on post count, likes received, total best answers, total active hours spent on forum, notification made to mods for spams/scams, duration of membership. I know this metric is getting something similar to trophy points. Uhmm! Might be trophy points can determine a contributing member?? I know its easier to put it in words. But, i think "3" likes is a good move towards quality but ONLY the 3 likes cannot exactly define a contributing member.
@kingofking, if you don't post and don't contribute you'll never be considered as a "contributing member". If you do and you consequently receive the required 3 likes you will. It has to start somewhere (quality assessment) and is just a measuring stick not an accurate sliderule.
Yes! I do agree! My point is Quality assessment could have better if it had been a combination of several activities which the users do on the forum rather than sticking only to "3" likes! But, I do appreciate the move from post counts to likes
lol...they can't make it any harder for users to get established..have you seen all the complainers saying how hard it is just to get 3 likes...there would be uproar...LMFAO
Ideally yeah... It would also be based on other factors. The problem though is when you start doing that everything starts to become very confusing about how to get established. There's something to be said about simplicity.