I figured I'd search the vBulletin docs to see how easy it is to do the things we're discussing. It looks like a flexible, easy to manage system.

User ranks (i.e. titles like evangelist):
http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/user_ranks_intro

User titles:
And, here is a plugin to show display the number of posts a user has in a current forum:
http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=105490
So, technically, it can be done. However, further down in that discussion someone writes:
(I don't know if this is correct...)

vBulletin is written in PHP with a MySQL back end, so I'd assume it is customizable.

I have very consciously opted to no longer participate in this thread, but after seeing this thread http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=682414 and then this post and the response http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...ostcount=20832 I feel like maybe it is time to make a different suggestion.

Lose the silly titles, because THAT seems to be the motive, and seems to go beyond post counts or omni (as we are already seeing other requests on it). This is as stupid as I see with my clients and who can be called VP and his title is more important than mine and such.....if this is about people trying to trump each other with titles and too many people able to get their title then LOSE THE STUPID TITLES.

If there are people who need to stress how important they perceive themselves to be then let them do it in their signature. But dont use this motion that I still think is as sad as the whole Imus mess (both about disenfranchising one group of people as less valuable) to do it!!!!

PLEASE TALK BOARD, DO NOT SEGREGATE FT!

Edited to add: garg - congrats on finding there it technology to solve this. Now TB please consider using that, losing the titles and let this die the death it should. Cancel the motion, please.

We're quite aware of these types of things but have always opted - and will continue to opt ... - for the board performance over anything else. The plug-in you refer to begins with "It has been reported that one of the queries used in showthread takes too much time on a big board, so if you have a big board, you've been warned. :ermm:" Need we say anything more?

We can't even get it to load on a test server very well without any traffic, so they are correct is their warnings.

For your entertainment:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=563745

The last time this came up it involved not counting Omni, but NOT applying that retroactively. I supported (and still do) that idea.

I didn't realize this same motion was up for a vote less than a year ago. Perhaps we should have a reasonable waiting period before an identical motion is raised again? How often are we going to go through the same nonsense? If this motion doesn't pass, are we going to see it again in a few months?

I was under the impression that the impetus for this motion was the proliferation of counting games and relatively recent . . . um . . . "over indulgence" in posting to them on the part of a small number of FTers. Apparently, though, there is some "stop the OMNI post counts" underground active here. Is there something more to it than the obvious?

This isn't an exactly identical motion although it is aimed at much the same objectives as the prior one. Notice the position "shifts" in some cases and the position shifts in other cases. In some cases, it is the differences between the motions that explain the current position (or "shifts"); in other cases, it is the circumstances that explain the current position (or shifts); and in yet other cases, go figure.

Wow! That is a lot of shifts. "Some" because of the difference in motions. "Some" because of the circumstances. "In yet other cases, go figure."

Oops. There were only two members who changed their votes: ScottC and Cholula.

I, personally, would not have voted for the motion if it had not been retroactive. If an Omni post made tomorrow shouldn't be counted than neither should one made yesterday.

Most TalkBoard members (myself included) have a lot of Omni posts in their counts and these should not be protected while denying that to people now making posts.

My "old" vote did not shift. In our discussions in the Talkboard I said that I would support removing the post counts as long as they were not retroactive. The current motion included a retroactive removal of all posts. My position is the same as it was last year.

Rudi writes:

That is absolutely brilliant. That way I can remain an "Original Member" forever, without having to limit my posts, and wingless in any of her iterations can have as many posts as her heart desires.

What a brilliant idea.

OK. We've had a lot of discussion about the alternate option of showing post counts for both overall and forum specific, or other alternate ways of displaying post count. It looks like any of those options will require the programing of a custom plugin, one which doesn't increase server load (unlike the plugin I found in the vBulletin support forum). So, that is no longer an easy or likely option- it would require the HOM to program, test, and implement their own modification to vBulletin.

This is an option a lot of people liked, but it appears to not be a practical solution at this time. Unless someone with more technical understanding than I have of PHP and MySQL says it is practical, it looks like that is off the table.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled battles...

(BTW, Thanks and Kudus to Randy and the HOM for being a step ahead of us- they already knew of this option and had checked it out)

Hmmmm. Another instance in which I agree with Underpressure. This is getting scary.

I need to lie down.

I have been told by one member of TB I should try harder to understand TB's side of this, so I am trying to open my mind. I want to ask a question of only the TB members who support this motion (and ask for respect from my fellow FT'ers in not jumping all over them and just let them answer). And want to preface it by saying it is NOT an attack, a set up, a criticism or any other way you want to put it, I am genuinely trying to understand and find a way to be ok with this whole thing- because it saddens me to see it ripping FT in two. I also apologize if the wording seems like an attack or challenge, it isnt meant that way, I can not come up with a kinder gentler wording that made sense.

Ok my question (worded two ways):

How are we as members who post in Omni not to feel like we are being given a second class rating when the same topic can be discussed in the rest of FT and have value but in Omni and not (which does happen)?

How do you see the thousands of OT posts outside of Omni as being more valuable than topics on travel in Omni just because of location?

I really hope we can get some honest answers, as I think understanding this would help a lot of us who are struggling with this topic.

Lehava , IIRC there actually was a time when OMNI posts did not count toward post counts. I think that there have also been times when OMNI has been shut down entirely.

OMNI started out as a small happy place where we shared stuff about our lives that didn't have anything to do with travel. As the board got bigger and bigger, OMNI became a very different and busy place.

Praise God that it is still a place where we can do or say pretty much anything we think. That is a good thing for FT and for that reason I love OMNI. I don't always understand it, and don't post there too much, but I love it all the same.

My impression is that the reason that some folks want to restrict OMNI posts from post counts is that there are people who post short posts many, many times a day, presumably just to build their post count and get Evangelist status.

I am of two minds on this issue:

1. Part of me says, yes, restrict all OMNI post from post counts so we can see how many non-OMNI posts each member has.

2. The other part of me says, let it be. Sooner or later, FlyerTalk Evangelist, especially for members who have only been around a few years, will become a symbol of folks who just spend way too much time on the computer.

So, personally I have no horse in this race, but it sure has been interesting to watch.

I know that, and it's why I used shift and "shift".