The lovely raeban just gave me another argument against ANY designation... WHY should people be labeled if they just check out the post and are afraid too or don't feel like posting??? It makes someone labeled a lurker or a junior member virtually a NOTHING or someone to be badgered at.

If people get information whether they post 3000 times or two times a year then that's what should matter most: getting the most of our travel and our travel dollars.

I'm like a broken record: No levels! No LEVELS! NO LEVELS!


------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

Thanks for the continued dialog on this issue, it's actually very good research on how a community works. I think I've got a few ideas and promise a resolve to the original question in the next few weeks. As I hope you understand, all the opinions noted here is very valuable input.

I see you're up to 29 posts, Randy! Reply to this one, and you're in!

I've been a "member" before with many posts but lost my status during the server tech problems so I'm almost back there. But that comment brings another observation to the idea of levels names, what if we got rid of level names and listed below your name was just the number of posts that you made? Or, what if there were no level names but we could allow members to add an icon below their name. This selection of icons would maybe be the logo for your favorite frequent traveler program, or maybe icons for a variety of self-described traveler identities, all of these icons being graphic based. Just another question. Though I have to say, it's really great to reread this thread from the top each time. While I know it seems that several don't really care for level names (please remember that the software engine for this system came that way), it is still interesting for me to note that when there were some server tech problems, most of the email we got was from people worried about restoring their posts numbers for "member" status......

But, what's your thoughts on id of the number of posts each person who posts has made?

I've been "lurking" in this thread for a while, but haven't suggested anything. It looks like Randy might be concluding here at some point so I'll throw two cents in...

We start as Piper Cubs or something similarly small and work our way up to 777 status or the almost unattainable "Concord" status, i.e. Catman, Rudi. http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
aloha!
http://www.hotshirts.com

I've observed that the Member/Junior Member issue only came up when FT was having problems, and normally is not an issue when things are running smoothly. The only exception to this is when people ask about the Member/Junior Member rating, and are then told how it is based on the number of posts.

The number of postings issue seems to come up fairly regularly, though, and independantly of FT problems or any other indirect influence. Notice the discussion about Rudi recently passing 3000, and Randy just making 30.

I think there is some value in a rating scheme of some type. If someone with 400 posts asks me about, say, CP upgrade coupons, they'd probably get the brief answer. On the other hand, someone with 4 posts would probably get a more detailed answer. I know this means making some assumptions, but at least they will be made on some evidence.

Having said that, perhaps it would be best to always give the detailed (4 poster) response, even to someone with 400 posts, given than many 4 posters may be following the thread. So as you can see, I'm a very confused person.

With regard to prizes, bonus, upgrades, there was some discussion about using the number of posts, and then a concern about someone "padding" but inflate the number of posts. Perhaps an alternative would be to measure the number of responses to a post, which I suspect is a good indicator of the value of a contribution.

It may not be obvious from my babbling, but I favour a simple "number of posts" approach.

Regards,

Ken Hamer
P.S. It's intersting to compare the discussion and preferences for "elite level" type designators here, with the discussion in Richard Brodie's Frequent Flyer Viruses thread in the Buzz.

[This message has been edited by KenHamer (edited 06-02-99).]

Randy ~ Although the levels would be nice, I think they are unnecessary.

Also, given the trouble that has been experienced recently with the Flyertalk Board, I'd be worried to see you guys hacking custom code into the UBB unless absolutely necessary.

Randy.....I like your idea of no levels but use of an icon. Total democracy. Just think.....if you did that.....the next time your server goes down....no emails from those concerned about loss of status!

The idea of listing the number of posts could work, but again I'm wonder if even that is necessary. I mean who cares if someone posts 3000 times or ten times (and why advertise it for those of us with spouses and cats who wonder why we do in our spare time.)

The number could cause potential problems in some homes and with cats who are busy sharpening their claws.

As I said just let us post and be one big happy family.

Thank you for your time and have a MEOWY day!


------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

Hold on folks....there are a few different topics here

1) I enjoy watching Rudi and Catman approach their 3000 posts. I like to know how many I've made. More than anything else, it's a way to track time and participation. Put that under our name? That's OK for me, but maybe not everyone's preference. The current format, where I can get the info if/when I want it is, I think, more than adequate.


2)I understand UBB's reason for Member/Junior Member is to easily identify someone who hasn't posted very much before. This serves as an explanation for a silly question, repetition, or a misplaced post. After 30 posts or so, it is assumed that you're experienced enough on the board to stop making "rookie mistakes". I have a greater tolerance for mistakes and tend to provide longer explanations to folks who are new here - I don't treat anyone better because I know them, I just go over things with new posters that I believe someone with more time would know. If we want to give posters fun level-names instead of the current one(s) I have no objection, as long as that is their only purpose. Maybe an AMEX rip-off like "Member Since May 99" would be best.

3) Graphics? Well, if there were a bunch to choose from, so the newest novice wouldn't feel bad, fine. Or why not just turn the UBB IMG codes back on.

I think the real point of all of this would be a way for Flyertalkers to recognize those among us who make excellent contributions to the community. Again, if that is the desire, I feel it should be elected or appointed, not based on arbitrary numbers. I would be all for a system that would honor some of the people who have been most helpful to me.



[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 06-02-99).]

From miles apart, it's all starting to come together. With this last bunch of comments comes a few new ideas. What I do like to read is that there is concern with helping others with answers to their questions and comments about these programs, that means a lot to me, and I speak for many of the staff at WebFlyer for that. Keep commenting and I'll turn this thread into a cultural white paper on the community of frequent flyers. Regards to all....

arturo wan grafiks lik befour en segnatur. thin katmen kan put hes kat unner hes nam. arturo lik katmen an hes posts.

and katmen like arturo and hes postz.

If you come to the PIP, I will treat you to a glass of milk.



------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

arturo lacktose entolarent and knot drenk melk. arturo hav tekila an lim wif a litl NaCl.

It seems there is some value to being able to identify people who have experience with this thing, but many people (myself included) don't like level names. Randy's 6/2 12:04pm post gave me an idea: suppose you can get an icon after 30 (or whatever) posts? I'd guess that most active posters would take advantage of it. The only distinguishing feature of a "newbie" post would be absence of an icon. That isn't derogatory and wouldn't be 100 percent accurate anyhow because some experienced posters would be icon-less also.

The number of "How do I get an icon?" posts would probably level off around where "How do I get to be a Member?" posts were.

Madame Tree reappears...

I vote against icons, because graphics take too long to load - not everyone has a fast connection. (Yes, yes, Jaws, I know you envy my T1-in-my-pajamas)

I do like the idea of changing "junior member" to "new member", as it seems less derogatory while still enabling others to identify those who might be deserving of patience/detailed explanations. (Of course, I am sure that there are some very "senior" lurkers out there too) If you must insert a third tier, I like Rudi's suggestion - it seems to be among the most neutral ("passenger, crew, captain" isn't too bad either http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif ) The complexity of posting all one's levels on different ff programmes seems to invite potential server problems...

OMNI: One of the good things about being far from a (regular) connection during all the server troubles was that withdrawal was forced upon me... and I suffered no angst about any loss in status, as it seems that one had to post in order to inspire the server's anger.

Baobab makes a good point... remember when we had the chance to put icons in our singature and some people (like a certain single guy with cats) overloaded the systems with waving cats, dancing cats and flying planes.

I personally think they are way awesome cool but if the server can't support them then we can do without.

Maybe Rudi's idea would work best IF we have to have some kind of level. Passenger can make eveyrone feel important. What would be the criteria for crew and captain (I'm assuming Rudi is already a Lieutenant general! http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

If you decide to go with levels I will not challenge it. Just call me CATMAN.

I have had titles (98 percent of them not very nice ones.) SO I'm soured on the idea.



------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

I'm too egalitarian in nature to be a big fan of levels, but anything is fine!

Should time enrolled as a contributor be a factor?

I vote to keep the graphics off.

Long ago academics learned an important lesson about publication. If all you want is clutter require posts. People will fill the boxes with the most mundane things just to be published and make the next rank.

Our local newspaper has a brilliant approach to their letters to the editor. For those that make significant points, advance an idea, or make a worthwhile contribution they add a star infront of the letter. They are not generous with their stars. Each year they invite all the "stars" to a luncheon and have a few of them speak. It has brought great focus to their editorial page and people really tune-in.

Perhaps posted messages could be recognized for what they contribute, and membership levels awarded on that basis, rather than on quantity which could give the highest honors to the prolific dunderhead!

Hear-eye-goe mak point. knot guud won tho. arturo wan to kno who es goin to reed posties an desid ef they guud or bad an thin gev postor kubos an mimbershep lebel?

arturo awlredy two bizy two doo thes fore awl posties hear. mebe randy hire tin or leben peepl to doo thes job.

OK, Madame Tree, yes I do admire your pajamas and especially the T-1 in there.

Perhaps y'all are right about the graphics debilitating the server. The Texas Ranger knows the server has suffered enough lately. So, JAWs still votes for "no levels".

And I vote for NO STARS...

*A post may be outstanding or significant for some but not for all.
*Stars belong with Starwood, not this software (It may crash it.)
*I thought stars went out with kindergarden (I never went, that's just what I've heard.)

OK, not more furry clutter.


------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

I am with you Catman - against stars on this board.

I am opposed to you Catman - don't underestimate a Kindergarten (my oldest daughter is a Kindergarten teacher!) http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Rudi... I will write you an apology about kindergarten.

I think it's very very very very important.
The problem was when I first entered school I tested so well the school said I was beyond kindergarten and put me in the first grade.

And I think the kindergartens in Europe are so much more interesting and the children probably learn more than in some U-S variations.

In Vienna it was the Kindergarten students who helped me find the right street car to where I was going!

------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

I say just include the number of posts under the name. You can always use hex to keep some people happy :-)

Welllll.... I don't think I made my point.

The point is not "stars.."

It is recognizing something of value.

How many quick posts will it take from how many new members to clutter the boards beyond the point anyone wants to read them?

Hmmmmmm. That would be a problem. Maybe a new forum should be created for meaningless posts. These posts would count towards the elite levels but would be in a place where nobody would have to bother going to.

Well, if a "Meaningless Posts" category is created, wouldn't it seem logical to create a category like "There is Some Question About These Posts" and a category "These Posts are Meaningful". And the artificial intelligence of the FT Server could decide how to categorize the posts. YEAH, RIGHT!!!

OK Randy, Sorry I had to post a "Meaningless Post" to show how ridiculous some of these posts really are. Let's just lock this thread and, as we say in Texas, "Get On With It!!!"

OK, I'll delurk on this one, even though I think Here-I-Go said it best.

There's an old rule in government bureaucracy - if you reward something, you encourage it; therefore be careful to specify what exactly you are rewarding. If (as Randy says) the only criterion the software will recognize is quantity, if you reward quantity then quantity is what you will get.

If that's all you want (like some sites strive for "hits" by adding a list of words so search engines will pick them up even though the words have nothing to do with the subject of the site), then set levels based on number of posts. You will find the number of posts will increase.

However, quantity is not quality, and indeed can reduce quality with clutter - "chaff" if you will - generated by those who are posting like crazy for the simple sake of running up their numbers. We do not have a problem with that now (well, not a big problem, although occasionally it does seem that some "junior" members strive mightily to remove the perceived "stigma" associated with that status), but we sure will if quantity is the sole criterion for elite status.

And I don't see how we could equitably add quality as a criterion. It is simply quite subjective, especially on the "iffy" cases. Arturo's suggestion, tongue in cheek though it might have been, was (as usual) right on. We would need an arbiter acceptable to the community, and arturo (clearly acceptable, I would say) has wisely declined. Would we need also an appellate body to review the arbiter's decisions in close cases? If so who, and under what standards? What I may see as frivolous another may see as deep insight.

And we would undoubtedly get embroiled in second-order fusses about the quality or lack thereof in a particular post instead of focussing on the end-all and be-all, => MORE MILES. The result would likely be lower quality discourse on the main point of the Board instead of improved participation.

So, I come down on the side of no elites. However, just as a new driver in many countries displays a symbol to tell others to show him (or her) more consideration, so also it might be useful to have some designation for the newly-arrived to our community - not as a stigma, but as a service. Maybe it's the name (and the connotations appurtenant thereto) that is the problem. Maybe change "junior member" to "Honored visitor" or some such.

As for me, I'd be satisfied with nice distinctive luggage tags.

OK, I'll delurk on this one, even though I think Here-I-Go said it best.

There's an old rule in government bureaucracy - if you reward something, you encourage it; therefore be careful to specify what exactly you are rewarding. If (as Randy says) the only criterion the software will recognize is quantity, if you reward quantity then quantity is what you will get.

If that's all you want (like some sites strive for "hits" by adding a list of words so search engines will pick them up even though the words have nothing to do with the subject of the site), then set levels based on number of posts. You will find the number of posts will increase.

However, quantity is not quality, and indeed can reduce quality with clutter - "chaff" if you will - generated by those who are posting like crazy for the simple sake of running up their numbers. We do not have a problem with that now (well, not a big problem, although occasionally it does seem that some "junior" members strive mightily to remove the perceived "stigma" associated with that status), but we sure will if quantity is the sole criterion for elite status.

And I don't see how we could equitably add quality as a criterion. It is simply quite subjective, especially on the "iffy" cases. Arturo's suggestion, tongue in cheek though it might have been, was (as usual) right on. We would need an arbiter acceptable to the community, and arturo (clearly acceptable, I would say) has wisely declined. Would we need also an appellate body to review the arbiter's decisions in close cases? If so who, and under what standards? What I may see as frivolous another may see as deep insight.

And we would undoubtedly get embroiled in second-order fusses about the quality or lack thereof in a particular post instead of focussing on the end-all and be-all, => MORE MILES. The result would likely be lower quality discourse on the main point of the Board instead of improved participation.

So, I come down on the side of no elites. However, just as a new driver in many countries displays a symbol to tell others to show him (or her) more consideration, so also it might be useful to have some designation for the newly-arrived to our community - not as a stigma, but as a service. Maybe it's the name (and the connotations appurtenant thereto) that is the problem. Maybe change "junior member" to "Honored visitor" or some such.

As for me, I'd be satisfied with nice distinctive luggage tags.

Or instead of any titles for any new member we can have the connotation "WELCOME!" to show the older FlyerTalkers that this is a new people we should make feel welcome.

I know it's a wierd title but it's better than Junior Member. Makes the newbees sound like children.



------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

Catman- does that mean that after some many contributions, one is no longer "welcome"?

In some cases I agree with that!

No ranles... what I meant is after a certain number of postings you have established yourself as a member of Flyertalk and then you can join us and help welcome the new WELCOME people.

It was just a suggestion. I don't like the member titles and the number of posts title.

As I said... nothing is best!


------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

Randy,ladies and gentlemen:
You can call me what you want, junior member,senor member (thanx arturo),welcome member, or no member.
Lets get to the bottom line. We are all here to help one another with information that will improve our free ticket inventory. If some one has information and wishes to share it, I say "many thanks". Since following Flyer Talk I personally have gained knowledge and free ticket inventory that I would not have had. So, thank you...all, and call me what you you wish. I'll still read the posts and contribute my bit when appropriate.

Just to show how much attention I pay, I hadn't truly realized there were "Member" and "Junior Member" designations or, at least, what they meant, before I started following this thread. I'm not for elitism unless it's going to get me something of value - more upgrades, e.g. I also agree, though, that some of us would probably like to be more considerate and detailed in a response to a new poster than we would to Rudi or Catman, and it might be nice to have some way to identify those folks. How about, instead of a banner by the poster's name, some sort of automatic introduction in the body of the post: "I'm new. Please help me out" for someone who has only a few posts; nothing for someone in the middle; and "I've been around for ages - ignore me if I ask a question, but listen if I give an answer" for the truly prolific among us. I'm not suggesting specifics, by the way. Just a concept.

http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif (philforest)

Off subject, but fascinating: I have a double post back up there, but look at the times. First post posted at 1:40 AM (when I sent it); duplicate came in at 6:46 AM, long after I had closed down and retired for the night.

How'd it do that?

ONE MORE TIME!!!

This horse has been beaten to shreds. Make a decision, ever how popular or unpopular, and lock this thread. It now takes too long to load, unless, of course, one has a T-1 in the their pajamas. Right, Tree? http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

A potential technical solution which does not require hacking the code, and which reflects the opinions of a clear majority of members:

In the software field naming options, rename Junior Member to "Member". Thus, when one joins one will immediately become a "Member", and when one achieves the next 'status level' the software will label them anew as a "Member".

My three cents.


------------------
--Ronald
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>