Make the veteren's section for users with 1000 posts or 1 year active?

HaloBlu said:

Yep Grass is always greener.
What I would like to see is Seller Rep & Buyer Rep in addition to the regular rep that people can use for any whim.
Any post spammer that also posts some neat pictures or jokes can get Rep & 2000 posts. Perhaps they are also a halfway decent Seller but as a Buyer they are an impatient moron who can't comprehend the mail isn't a teleporter & *gasp* might be delayed once in awhile.

Click to expand...

I always wondered why there is no way to see rep further then 10 comments back. Would be a nice option, and altogether more revealing, for any potential buyers or sellers.

As for mail... always ship tracked, anything over $100 insurance is also a must. I almost learned that lesson the hard way earlier this week.

InfinitusEquitas said:

I always wondered why there is no way to see rep further then 10 comments back. Would be a nice option, and altogether more revealing, for any potential buyers or sellers.

Click to expand...

Yes! Forgot about the rep comment.
Tracking is certainly a requirement at least.

unless anyone disagree a lot a personally dont have a problem of giving access to people w/ less than 1000 posts but extensive laser knowledge and trusted in the community / etc

peace
-ave

I think the limit should not be 1000 posts. Personally, I feel like I have differentiated myself from the n00bs and try to help all members, and I think that once someone has done that, they should have access.

Neither time on the forum, nor post count, really seem like good analogues for "veteran" status.

Though it wouldn't be perfect, why not use a REP threshold? At least conceptually, reputation seems a closer parallel with "vet status" than mere post count, or age of a membership. Even though the REP system isn't flawless, wouldn't it at least do a better job?

maybe RHD but what kind of rep are we talking. ben had 19 rep and he was a scammer... rep isnt perfect. people give rep for funny jokes etc

bennett326 said:

maybe RHD but what kind of rep are we talking. ben had 19 rep and he was a scammer... rep isnt perfect. people give rep for funny jokes etc

Click to expand...

I'm not sure. I'd hate to throw a number out there without giving it more thought, because then I think it's tempting to criticize the number instead of the concept. But I would think more than 19 for sure.

And while you're right, that people give out rep for jokes, the forum presently gives a "post count" increase for EVERYTHING (joke, silly picture, dumb question, smart question, etc).

Isn't REP at least more related to vet status than post count?

rhd said:

I'm not sure. I'd hate to throw a number out there without giving it more thought, because then I think it's tempting to criticize the number instead of the concept. But I would think more than 19 for sure.

And while you're right, that people give out rep for jokes, the forum presently gives a "post count" increase for EVERYTHING (joke, silly picture, dumb question, smart question, etc).

Isn't REP at least more related to vet status than post count?

Click to expand...

totally agree there. and yeah its hard to throw a number out. mabye 30? thats very easy to achieve if you just help out IMO. i dont know maybe simply a "reputation beyond repute". there are people who i think should be vets that have less than 300 posts because they have helped me so much. but i do still think we need a post count minimum.

:undecided: its a hard task to find a way to classify someone as a vet

bennett326 said:

totally agree there. and yeah its hard to throw a number out. mabye 30? thats very easy to achieve if you just help out IMO. i dont know maybe simply a "reputation beyond repute". there are people who i think should be vets that have less than 300 posts because they have helped me so much. but i do still think we need a post count minimum.

:undecided: its a hard task to find a way to classify someone as a vet

Click to expand...

If it's a subjective measure, you'll just end up with drama. "why are they in the vet section, and I'm not, etc etc etc".

These types of exclusive opportunities (even though really it's the slowest forum on this site) need some sort of objective measures in order to appear fair to everyone.

Maybe 30, maybe 50, I don't know - people would have to think the concept makes sense before having a discussion about the number.

I think a post minimum is important because it shows who really cares about this forum. But I also think the vet requriments are fine.

rhd said:

If it's a subjective measure, you'll just end up with drama. "why are they in the vet section, and I'm not, etc etc etc".

These types of exclusive opportunities (even though really it's the slowest forum on this site) need some sort of objective measures in order to appear fair to everyone.

Maybe 30, maybe 50, I don't know - people would have to think the concept makes sense before having a discussion about the number.

Click to expand...

please not 50 :crackup: :crackup: lets make it 45

EEDIT: thats allot of 1s

You mentioned that BH had 19 + rep here when he went bad.

Now that I think back, I'm pretty sure he also had 1,000+ posts, and was able to get into the vet's area.

BH is actually probably a good example of someone who had quite a few posts, but perhaps not a lot of "vet-ness" (icky, I feel icky for using that phrase). The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that a REP-based system probably would have prevented BH from getting into the vet section, but a post-based system wouldn't have.

rhd said:

You mentioned that BH had 19 + rep here when he went bad.

Now that I think back, I'm pretty sure he also had 1,000+ posts, and was able to get into the vet's area.

BH is actually probably a good example of someone who had quite a few posts, but perhaps not a lot of "vet-ness" (icky, I feel icky for using that phrase). The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that a REP-based system probably would have prevented BH from getting into the vet section, but a post-based system wouldn't have.

Click to expand...

he had ~1,600 IIRC and yes it would have. you can make it 46 if you like :crackup:

he obviously posted allot so people would think he was a "vet" and buy from him. there are many people that have 1k+ posts bit i wouldnt consider a vet. not that i dont like them just i dont think they contribute more than they take. and even though we can not implement that ratio. its the ratio that matters IMO the ratio of contribution:to random posts/asking for help

Imo there are there are thee factors why which a person on lpf can be judged.

1. Their tenure. By itself of course it's useless.

2. Their Post count. Again by itself it is useless.

3. Their Rep. Helpful in balancing out the other two factors available so far.

For the moment the current logic of 1k posts utilizes only one.

Why not, in addition to requiring 1k posts, also require at least 40 rep, and six months of active participation?

Of couse the latter two factors should be used to balance each other out, so someone who has say 60 rep but only 500 posts... why not let them in?

c0ldshadow said:

unless anyone disagree a lot a personally dont have a problem of giving access to people w/ less than 1000 posts but extensive laser knowledge and trusted in the community / etc

peace
-ave

Click to expand...

No, that makes perfect sense. There are a few members out there who IMO are extremely helpful, friendly, but don't post as much as others.

I always assumed that this was the case, so this thread OP kind of puzzled me with it's purpose, but it is a good question nonetheless.

rhd said:

Isn't REP at least more related to vet status than post count?

Click to expand...

As you yourself point out... people give out rep left and right for useless BS, but at the same time often ignore actually helpful posts. If you take a look, you'll see some members who consistently get plus reps for funny pictures.

I must confess I've given out a few of those +reps myself.

A multifaceted rep system would be ideal, but I doubt there is an effective way to implement it.

rhd said:

You mentioned that BH had 19 + rep here when he went bad.

Now that I think back, I'm pretty sure he also had 1,000+ posts, and was able to get into the vet's area.

Click to expand...

His rep was 19, and he had around eleven hundred posts at the time, irrc.

Edit... I stand corrected... Total Posts: 1,682.

InfinitusEquitas said:

Imo there are there are thee factors why which a person on lpf can be judged.

1. Their tenure. By itself of course it's useless.

2. Their Post count. Again by itself it is useless.

3. Their Rep. Helpful in balancing out the other two factors available so far.

For the moment the current logic of 1k posts utilizes only one.

Why not, in addition to requiring 1k posts, also require at least 40 rep, and six months of active participation?

Of couse the latter two factors should be used to balance each other out, so someone who has say 60 rep but only 500 posts... why not let them in?

Click to expand...

Instead of using the subjective "so someone who has say 60 rep but only 500 posts... why not let them in?", why not find a way to make it objective, transparent and fair?

I like where you've gone with the above, and I think it could be tweaked by saying:

- 40 rep (or whatever number makes more sense)
AND EITHER
- 1,000 posts, OR
- 6 months of participation

It seems like that would accomplish filling in the potential gaps, where someone might have been here for a long time, have great rep, but not post a lot. OR, maybe someone posts a lot, gets great rep for it, but has only been doing it for 5 months.

i like your idea rhd