Under people's user names, I see different titles, such as learning the ropes, prolific etc depending on the number of contributions on the boards. Where can I find more details about these 'titles' - such as how many posts one needs before moving up to the next category. Thanks

I will anchor this to the top of the forum. The information used to be visible in the FAQs in the older version of this software but is no longer there.

Thank you for your response. I was also wondering where the list had disappeared to.

And it would appear that sue943 has opted to use her powers as an Administrator to override the title she has otherwise earned. Do you blame her?

All of the admins have that, including romeomikegolf with under 5000 posts and crisw with under 6000.

It was a just a little humour.

Ha. I think I would choose Administrator over Old Museum Relic as well!

Old Museum Relic was for Gatsby722, he was the only person anywhere near, now he has over 100,000 post I really ought to think of something else for him.

And now StarfishTwo has that title. She doesn't seem to mind...too much.

But I gleefully pointed it out to her when it switched over!

I remember that too.

Philosophical Fossil may be more appropriate.

I like it! (--Said by someone who has no danger of ever getting that title).

At least being an O.M. Relic is a moniker to be endured while in a temporary proving ground, after which you become Someone Very Special, a rightly deserved new title. I will never achieve either of them.

Neither will I. Prolific would be already a long-term goal.

The only reason I have as many posts as I do is that I played the chain games for a couple of months. I no longer have time to do that, but it is loads of fun. Maybe someday I'll be able to go back to those boards. Really nice people and a lot of clever wordplay and creativeness.

It is there again now.

While we're on the subject could we add the link to the most forum posts list we called up originally to see who had crossed the 5000 mark? No coincidence I've got there since and interesting to see the current figures from time to time. I know there's a way we can do it ourselves but can't work it out and doubt many people could.

Actually it was not me who did the override.

If you know there is a way of working it out yourself then I wish that you would tell me, the only way that I know to find the information is to use the Administration Panel.

You are 58th highest poster David.

Gatsyby722 is uncatchable, I think, and he is followed by StarfishTwo, then gtho4 then myself. Some members who haven't been online for years are still very high in the list.

To produce a list, the only way that I know of, would take quite some time as I would need to copy it page by page into Word then edit it to remove information such as email addresses.

The only way I know how to do find that list is to go to the "user list" up at top. To find what place I am in, I flip through pages until I find myself; each page has 25 people, so if, for instance, you are on page 3, as David is, he's 8th on that page. So 2 full pages makes 50, plus the 8 is 58.

That's the only way I know how to do it without being an administrator.

And on the "user list" you can organize it however you want... Time of account creation, number of posts, name, occupation, etc.

Well, well, well. I hadn't used that link before. The Admin panel list is much the same except there are email and IP addresses.

lol, I'm glad I could help.

Interesting - only 202 users have managed more than 1,000 posts. Considering that's not even yet the middle of the scale (which would be rank 8 of 15), maybe we'll need a few additional lower ranks

Edit: Did some more research to put things into perspective. 320 pages (8000 users) have a post count greater than zero. The remaining are all dead signups without any posts.

From there, I halved the positions to get an impression of how the progression works:

4000th - 3 posts
2000th - 11 posts
1000th - 50 posts
500th - 211 posts
250th - 716 posts
125th - 2,049 posts
62nd - 4,761 posts (Gunslinger - what a coincidence)
31st - 8,717 posts
15th - 14,160 posts
8th - 17,656 posts
4th - 32,805 posts
2nd - 35,925 posts
1st - 107,103 posts

So (not that anyone cares ) this rank scale would be quite well adapted to our user base:

2nd - 3
3rd - 10
4th - 20
5th - 50
6th - 100
7th - 200
8th - 400
9th - 700
10th - 1,250
11th - 2,000
12th - 5,000
13th - 8,000
14th - 15,000
15th - 25,000
16th - 40,000
17th - 100,000

I know it's less intuitive, but it does better reflect our actual user base (and it's only two ranks more than the original).

As of this post, there are only 59 posters over the 5,000 mark.



That will change soon. I'm only eight behind that number at this post.

Well done swami, I only knew it was possible as when the names were first suggested the stats were given for the top levels and a way to see them, otherwise I wouldn't have known. I don't remember how otherwise I wouldn't have needed to ask, but was surprised the relative few towards the top and I'd soon be joining them. I think a lot of people post a lot when they first arrive and then tail off or vanish altogether, otherwise if they stayed around and kept going many more would have reached 1000. It would be nice to see a bit more activity here again as some of the pages don't turn over for a week or more at the moment, I don't think it's been as slow before and it's not the people who do post but the ones who don't who need a little encouragement. I've certainly done my bit as I've seen the results but no names mentioned

It's a mixed blessing. When people think they are going to get a reward for posting, some will post unimportant things just to raise their tally. As things stand now, people are posting more often than not when they really have something to say. I wouldn't want to do anything to push those who really won't add to the conversation to become more chatty just for the sake of getting a new title.

I completely agree, Sue. It's also why I would never like to see a badge awarded for posts here, although some people have suggested it.