Members Titles

Discussion in 'Forum News and Announcements' started by Jim, Aug 6, 2007.

  1. Jim

    Jim Ringleader

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    25,841
    Likes Received:
    76,155
    Location:
    Sutton on Sea
    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:BigGrin:

    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..
     
  2. Road Runner

    Road Runner Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    14,196
    Likes Received:
    1,459
    Location:
    Europe
    I finally get a good name now you gonna nick it:Laughing::Laughing::Laughing:
     
  3. kands

    kands Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    13
    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 :RollEyes: 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 :BigGrin:) 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
     
  4. Bryan

    Bryan Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,096
    Likes Received:
    342

    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
     
  5. Jim

    Jim Ringleader

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    25,841
    Likes Received:
    76,155
    Location:
    Sutton on Sea
    That is my concern, so your vote is just for two levels, just new member and member and leave it there.?
     
  6. Bryan

    Bryan Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,096
    Likes Received:
    342

    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.
     
  7. kands

    kands Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    13
    Yep I like that idea Bryan.....
    Gets my vote :BigGrin:

    Keith
     
  8. Road Runner

    Road Runner Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    14,196
    Likes Received:
    1,459
    Location:
    Europe
    Sounds fine go for it:Wink:
     
  9. kands

    kands Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    13
    :Laughing::Laughing: Bryan, I think you just talked yourself into another job matey :Laughing::Laughing:

    Keith
     
  10. Suzy

    Suzy Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Lancashire
    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!:BigGrin:
     
  11. Jim

    Jim Ringleader

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    25,841
    Likes Received:
    76,155
    Location:
    Sutton on Sea
    Bryan!
     
  12. Bryan

    Bryan Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,096
    Likes Received:
    342
    You rang, m'lud?
     
  13. Jim

    Jim Ringleader

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    25,841
    Likes Received:
    76,155
    Location:
    Sutton on Sea
    I think we will let this run a while so more members get to see it before we do anything, What do you think? Give it till the weekend?
     
  14. Lindy-C

    Lindy-C Deleted User

    I don't mind what I'm called............as long as it aint too early in the morning! :Laughing:
     
  15. wilecoyote

    wilecoyote Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Leicester, UK
    But there are? Which is nearly always the way with forums?

    I mean, one only has to look at the "members list" to realise what goes on behind the scenes? Listing members under "A" for example shows..

    "anominus" joined on 27th July and is a member. Yet "Artona" joined 4 days later and is a founder member?

    Listing members under "B" shows..

    "Boffin" joined on the 22nd July and is only a member. Yet "Blondi" who joined 4 days later gets Founder Member status?

    And so it goes on?

    The Notice Board originally stated the first few members who joined would be founder members. Yet that can't be true because some folk got "founder member" status who joined AFTER other folk who didn't?

    It just depends on who you are you see.. clique brigade or not :)

    There is also some bad wording around on posts which doesn't help to dissolve this member status rubbish. I.E...

    http://www.motorhomefun.co.uk/showthread.php?t=62

    The post opens with..

    I propose that we have a get-together for us "Founder Members"

    Like I pointed out to Kands via PM, that means I am not invited then because I am only a mere "member" :BigGrin: (Can't make the meet anyway, but do you see my point).

    I don't want to cause any hassle here, but I am just pointing out how it appears to the non cliques ordinary member types...... like me :Wink:

    If you create status (or ranks) on the forums, then you nearly always create a divide? Before your even up and running you will be doomed. Hardcore forum types (like me) nearly always browse the members list to see who is who as soon as you join? That way you know which members are joined in force and which are not.. if you follow :rofl:

    Also, status on forums is defined by "ranks". You may like to remind yourself what that word means for a minute..

    Rank;

    –noun

    1. a number of persons forming a separate class in a social hierarchy or in any graded body.

    Not that it will matter, as I am just a mere nobody (member), but my own personal view is that you if really insist on using "ranks" on the forum, it is perhaps better when they relate to the amount of posts that any given user has made.

    IE:-

    0-10 New Member
    10-100 Member
    100-1000 Regular Member
    1000+ Hard core self procliamed addicted forum freak :BigGrin:

    That way it usually encourages those hell bent on the "status" thing to post more often to gain a better rank :Smile:

    Just my two penneth worth that's all?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. wildcamper

    wildcamper Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Merseyside
    I think Bryan has made a good suggestion and would agree with him :Smile:

    Ken & Dawn.
     
  17. wilecoyote

    wilecoyote Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Leicester, UK
    You you have to keep it simple if not at all?

    If you want to see how silly it looks on this forum, check this out..

    http://www.motorhomefun.co.uk/showthread.php?t=256

    29 pages of posts, 281 replies, and with the exception of my single post on the first page, there isn't a "member" in site. All "Founder Members", "Senior Members" or "Son of Founder Member". Incidentally, I'm not having a go, but I am curious as to why a special rank has been created for what I can see is one single user?

    Cliques, you bet.. but that is the way of forums, always has been and always will be?

    Don't get me wrong, I am all for this forum to work (which is why I'm ranting a bit), but in all honesty if you lot are going to create such a hierarchy here, one which has been witnessed and seen on "another" MH forum, then I may as well return to the one which has gazillions of members... follow me?

    Nuke will have nowt to fear, cus this MHF will be flat on it's face from word go :Frown:
     
  18. Jim

    Jim Ringleader

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    25,841
    Likes Received:
    76,155
    Location:
    Sutton on Sea
    Your quite right, no one likes a clique anywhere, least of all in a forum. The founder member thing was fun and productive in getting people here and creating a sense of ownership, whist we are creating the site, but anyone can see that it will certainly put divisions up, real or imaginary, and yes that will mean failure. This is the of course the reason for my initial post. You are echoing my feelings and I think most of the membership, that it would be folly to consider ranks. This is something that we need to get right from the off, because it will be very difficult to change things when we are open.

    I don't pretend to be anything other that a keen motorhomer that wants to build a fun community, I am certainly not an expert, or an "internet entrepeneur" and a month ago had no idea about how to build a simple web page, let alone an intereactive site like the one we have beginning here. Membership experience, sign up, and retention in this domain are all new to me, but we have loads of experience on here I am relying on the membership to help me get it right. Unless people tell me what they think and give me the benefit of their experience then the learning curve is going to be steeper that it is already.

    Those of you who know me are aware that, I am not easily offended, so critisism I take on the chin with a grateful smile. So please if you have something to say for the benefit of the site and the members, please let me know now so we can address it before we open.

    Thanks Wiley for your direct comments, they are very much appreciated
     
  19. Hugh Jardon

    Hugh Jardon Deleted User

    if the rank thing is related to the amount of posts left then to me that is the fairest approach:Smile:
     
  20. Munchie

    Munchie Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,529
    Likes Received:
    11,668
    Location:
    Champagnac-La-Riviere
    I think ypu are right Jim. As far as I am concerned we are all "members" equal in status.
     

Share This Page