Hi everyone,

I dont know if this is the best place to post this. I believe the Administrator will forgive me. On a second though - I guess not. Cos am about causing him another head ache.

I have been to some boards and I must confess I like the idea of ranking on those board.

In some of those boards when you join you are assigned the title - Rookie/JJC/New Member, post some couple of topics/replies, you become a Senior Member, Advocate, Senior Advocate, etc.


One important advantage of these ranking is that since it is based on contribution, it encourages members to come back often time to post.

Well thats a bill for the house to deliberate on. I hope it gets a second reading. Cheers

OGA administrator what do you have to say

Make una take una time oh una dey look for Oga administrator trobule.

But we go like hear from administrator

What ranks do you suggest and how many posts should people have in order to achieve them?

Good idea. Not soo good idea.

Cos then, people will start making useless posts to reach a desired level. By useless i mean really useless. Like " " "Haha", OMG haha". "i don't know".

So u see, i don't really like the idea, but it's left to mr. admin to deliberate. We already have enough of useless posters arround. Do we really need another reason to make em post more useless posts? I mean, people that'll stop at nothing to increase their post counts!

Honestly I did not prepare for this. I had to do a little surfing/searching to come up with this. Even then am not really satisfied with what I got. Anyway here is what I suggest (it can be modified depending implemention requirements or other considerations)
Rank No. of post required.
Superpower (Above 3000)
Heavyweight (1000 - 3000)
Light heavyweight (701-1000)
Middleweight (401-700)
Welterweight (201-400)
Lightweight (101-200)
Featherweigh (51-100)
Bantamweight (11- 50))
Flyweight (1- 10))

My problem with this ranking is that. Its used by boxers. In the absense of objections, it can be applied.

we should only give ranks to the Nairaland users whose post give reasons for thoughts and of course make alot of sense and not based on how many post people make.

Baby4u2, that would take far too much work. Whatever system that is implemented (if there would be a system) will have to automatically assign ranks once you pass a post count mark.

We can just let people make their own judgements about who is heavyweight on the forum, right?

Seun:

We can just let people make their own judgements about who is heavyweight on the forum, right?

Yea, in the end, it wont be a matter of how much (many posts), but how well (you have communicated).

baby4u2:

we should only give ranks to the Nairaland users whose post give reasons for thoughts and of course make alot of sense and not based on how many post people make.

What makes (a lot) sense my dear baby4u2? Honest I dont know. However someone once said: "In every non[b]sense[/b] there is some sense.

The audience is the utilmate decider of what makes sense.

Seun:

What ranks do you suggest and how many posts should people have in order to achieve them?

I hope you all read the thread titled "Who's the dumbest poster on nairaland?". The number of posts should not be used to determine any nomenclature, but the number of sentences, or better still the length of a post. Anybody can just start posting words like 'nice', 'cool', and 'beautiful' and at the end of the day is elevated to the position of the highest poster. It is true that our posts do not attract any monetary awards, but let us be honest with and to ourselves by getting down to brass tacks instead of taking the forum as a laboratory that churns out nursery rhymes.