Well, the whole discussion of ranks seems to have morphed into self-ascribed titles, or reverse Portuguese naval rankage, which actually makes more sense to me than rankings based on post count. (I never did get how that's supposed to be an indication of anything meaningful... 
)
The first question is whether there should be ranks at all. Typically, rank connotes things like authority and status. Such commodities have their place in civilized communities, and can serve positive purposes. But often they are easily abused, both in how they're given and how they're used after they're received. I won't parse the specific positive and negative applications of authority and status, because they're really beside the key point.
The key point is that an individual's rank is meaningful only to the extent that it reflects the degree to which he furthers the purposes of the community. If we could devise a way to create such a ranking system, then I would say it's meaningful and even useful. If we devise some other kind of ranking system, we'll probably end up with effects we don't want, like intimidating newcomers, promoting quantity at the expense of quality, polarizing, fractionating, or alienating some members, and generally firing a 12-gauge at our own foot.
I spent the better part of my drive-time today puzzling out how to devise a decent ranking system. I came up with some ideas that are only half-baked at best, and I'm not sure they'd pan out even if they were fully baked. I guess I'm still not convinced that a ranking system is either necessary or useful for a forum of the kind we have here.
Nevertheless, if you want to see an example of a ranking system that's already in place and has been working pretty well for years, you can read how it works at these links:
Anyhow, rankings based solely on post count are virtually useless, as far as I'm concerned. The most useful thing I can think of doing with them is ignoring them. I'm OK with rankings that genuinely reflect an individual's value to the community (not that I'm proposing a way to do it)—with the essential qualification that participation in such a ranking system be completely voluntary (i.e., each BoB can elect not to participate via a preference in his profile, or something like that), and I'm definitely OK with self-ascribed titles.
Vito
Science Officer, Churchwarden, and Maestro de Tunage
)The first question is whether there should be ranks at all. Typically, rank connotes things like authority and status. Such commodities have their place in civilized communities, and can serve positive purposes. But often they are easily abused, both in how they're given and how they're used after they're received. I won't parse the specific positive and negative applications of authority and status, because they're really beside the key point.
The key point is that an individual's rank is meaningful only to the extent that it reflects the degree to which he furthers the purposes of the community. If we could devise a way to create such a ranking system, then I would say it's meaningful and even useful. If we devise some other kind of ranking system, we'll probably end up with effects we don't want, like intimidating newcomers, promoting quantity at the expense of quality, polarizing, fractionating, or alienating some members, and generally firing a 12-gauge at our own foot.
I spent the better part of my drive-time today puzzling out how to devise a decent ranking system. I came up with some ideas that are only half-baked at best, and I'm not sure they'd pan out even if they were fully baked. I guess I'm still not convinced that a ranking system is either necessary or useful for a forum of the kind we have here.
Nevertheless, if you want to see an example of a ranking system that's already in place and has been working pretty well for years, you can read how it works at these links:
- Why are topics marked as questions?
- What are question answers?
- How do I get points for answering questions?
- Why do you reward points?
Anyhow, rankings based solely on post count are virtually useless, as far as I'm concerned. The most useful thing I can think of doing with them is ignoring them. I'm OK with rankings that genuinely reflect an individual's value to the community (not that I'm proposing a way to do it)—with the essential qualification that participation in such a ranking system be completely voluntary (i.e., each BoB can elect not to participate via a preference in his profile, or something like that), and I'm definitely OK with self-ascribed titles.
Vito
Science Officer, Churchwarden, and Maestro de Tunage
