Members Titles

Jim · 06-08-2007, 09:45 PM

I am going to give some thought to the whole "founder member" thing. I do not know how many we have it must be 30/40 or more, some of whom haven't even posted. The title was just given away to the first members that joined, initially as just a bit of a giggle. I quite like the term and it does reinforce the message that it is a members forum.

But...I do not know if it might put new members off joining or posting if they see this as a big "founder member clique" I know it isn't, and you guys know the same, I am just trying to get a handle of a newbies perception. So should we keep the founder member tags or choose something different to make it look a little more inviting say. We need to sort this before we open and maybe we can discuss it at the grand opening if we are sober for long enough

Most forums have a simple grading system, based on number of posts, our vanilla out-of-the-box setting at the moment is 0 to 100 posts = member, 100-200 = senior member 200 plus life member. Ranks like reputation can can add some kudos to the advice we give or the stories we tell. But just the join date and number of posts can add kudos, and we already have a reputation system that seems to be working.

So questions to discuss, should we keep the founder member tag, if no what could we replace it with that was newbie friendly? What ranks should we adopt re member, senior life etc? Or should we bin it and just all be members?

Over to you guys..

Road Runner · 06-08-2007, 09:57 PM

I finally get a good name now you gonna nick it

kands · 06-08-2007, 10:28 PM

That is a very interesting point Jim... Sometimes the titles thing can work against you as you say and sometimes people will just post rubbish stuff to up their post count and get a new title

I would like to think that we are above that, but if it came to a vote I would vote to remove the titles, all of us are equal anyway, and just leave the info as date joined and post count, which allied to the reputation system (which I still cannot work out

) will give new members some idea of who they are communicating with. Just because someone has a recent join date and a low post count, does not make their input any less valuable in my opinion.
Just my thoughts.......

Keith

Bryan · 06-08-2007, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJam

Over to you guys..

Jim,

I reckon that it should be rated as follows:

0-9 posts = New Member
10 or more = Member

This may encourage new members to post to elevate themselves to the same status as all other members.

The kudos for being a long time member or a prolific poster is maintained as below the avatar is the members join data and number of posts.

The terms New Member and Member could be changed to some other 'schema' but the principle is the same.

This 'everyone is a member' tag may stop newbies feeling that there are cliques on here.

Bryan

Jim · 06-08-2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

Jim,

This 'everyone is a member' tag may stop newbies feeling that there are cliques on here.

Bryan

That is my concern, so your vote is just for two levels, just new member and member and leave it there.?

Bryan · 06-08-2007, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJam

That is my concern, so your vote is just for two levels, just new member and member and leave it there.?

Yes, two levels.

One level would work but two levels as I describe could encourage newbies to post to rid themselves of the 'New' from their title.

kands · 06-08-2007, 10:36 PM

Yep I like that idea Bryan.....
Gets my vote

Keith

Road Runner · 06-08-2007, 10:37 PM

Sounds fine go for it

kands · 06-08-2007, 10:39 PM

Bryan, I think you just talked yourself into another job matey

Keith

Suzy · 06-08-2007, 10:40 PM

I would go for the two tiers, ie. New Members and Members because I think once you are a member you are equal to every other member.

You know, all members enjoying the same hobby/leisure activity - motorhoming and having fun!