member ranking

[cpars]

I am sure this topic has been raised before but i did not see a thread concerning it. Shouldn't there be a way of combining number of posts with active time as a member to achieve rating. I dont really have all day to post nor do I have that much too say all the time. My ranking kinda stinks for the time I have been a member here, but I guess thats just the way it is.

 

[nickdakick]

Hey look at your ratings they're not smelly at all.

 

[narzy]

1. slow rising members with informitive posts usually get a "special" status

hang in my friend

 

[cpars]

:Q User rating good !

But I want a sapphire,ruby,titanium or some other gem or precious metal ranking.Cmon mods create one just for me, I think I would like titanium thank you :disgust:

how about my 700+ pm's

 

[cpars]

Favor returned gentlemen

 

[A2KLAU]

Well ratings are not for you as I have mentioned in another post. The rating is there for people who are like resellers in a way and for normal users they are not needed! And anyway if you are a good user who needs ratings... Everybody here is like a small comunity and we know eachother and respect eachother so ratings are not really needed!

Albert.

 

[cpars]

I do not view it that way, when I send out 500 bucks or so I look at ranking then I look at how long they been around, and then at heatware, but you are correct that it really does not matter about the ranking, but I dont think the forums have to many ressellers as the term is normally used.

 

[Valhalla1]

I agree, I always said that the length of time youve been a member should count for something.

but that was when I was still a senior member yet I'd been here for 2 and a half years.

 

[cpars]

Ah I guess senior describes me pretty well since I turned 40 last week. just thought I would have a little fun and see if the mods would even respond.

LOL when I posted this thread I had two user ratings at 10, abit later I had 4@10 and now I have 7 and my average went to 6.14, guess its time to turn that off.

guess I,m off this thread, believe its dead

 

[cmv]

hehehe

 

[Isla]

Don't feel bad.

I've been working full steam towards 'saint' or 'sage' status in the netherworld of OT but it just hasn't happened yet. I post A LOT and still no results.

Keep being yourself and don't worry. Ranking means nothing (or so I tell myself.)

 

[airfoil]

In reply to another post, I said I had receiced one rating of 1. That was yesterday. Today I've gone 'up' to a rating of 4 with 6 votes...

 

[dougjnn]

My problem with the ratings is that it isn't immediately obvious when you go to vote for someone whether a 1 or a 10 is better.

I gather from reading here that high numbers are better. And sure, I suppose the real long timers here know that. But it would be a good thing if when you go to rate someone, there was a little note saying something like:

(higher numbers are better ratings).

I mean, but for a confusion such as I'm referring to, how else could I possibly have gotten a rating of "1" from one voter so far?? (About all I do here, when I talk, is try to help people with what I've learned. I've stayed out of the holy war arguments and the like, by and large. And certainly out of zinging people.)


HAS to have been confusion.

Dosen't it??