First, an update.

@ Morrison
Here's ONE colossal clarification,
We are talking about ALL titles, the auto-generated and specific honorary titles. I should know, I started the thread!
Well, quoting your words in that post (under another title, but quoted on pg 1 here) you said:
"I very much enjoyed the prospect of attaining the next available title. My goal had been to advance relevant conversation at more opportune occasions while having fun with the growth of my own presence on this forum.
...
Certainly, I've posted congrats and hello's and yes to this or no to that as a course of increasing my post count which leads to automatic title advancement. That, to me was a fun game and it contributed to my feeling engaged in this forum.
...
I implore you, ownership and mod staff along with you brothers and sisters to recreate and renew the vigor and interest in the fun aspect here and press to RESTORE the titles to us, the users whom sometimes need to see even a Whimsy or trite recognition, even if it is only a meaningless counter to some. It meant plenty to me."
-------------

So, umm, even with my snips for brevity, there was no mention of the honorifics, only your preference for the auto-generated post count titles. Thus, your clarification is less clear.


Now, onward.

Special thanks to TattooBradley for the link to the prior discussion. I completely missed it originally and found it most informative. By reading it, I learned that Honorific (or Vanity) titles are to be bestowed by the Mods Assembled in reward for service to the forum. This is as it should be, and I support it entirely.

The original discussion in that thread was reaction to the sudden loss of ALL titles, and there were many well-reasoned responses on both sides, plus in the middle and on the sidelines. If you haven't read that lengthy thread (+100 posts) you should.

I found several people over there, including some of the Lairds, who agree with me that auto-generated post-count titles are not a good thing. I have concatenated several quotes from that thread below.

@Steve Ashton:
So, are Post Rank Titles really helping to bring us together or do they just provide yet another thing to separate us?

(and Colin, a retired mod added)
Special titles aside, if you guys really want to make everyone equal and to take out any discomfort for new people than you need to get rid of the post count as well. More emphasis is given to the post count than was ever given to the titles people had.
People on Xmarks were basing someone's knowledge on the post count of others. Someone new can come onto the site and post a 1000 "way to go!" comments and climb up the post count ladder in weeks, but they are still not going to have a clue about Scottish culture, history, or the kilt.
...
Having a couple dozen kilts and spending a ton of time on an internet forum means you have too much time and disposable income, not necessarily knowledge about the subject. I often find the biggest talkers are the ones that know the least.
So if you guys really want the focus to be on the kilt and the shared experiences on a level playing field than ditch the "kilt count" and the " post count". (CamCat note to readers: at NO time was kilt count part of the present discussion in this thread; mentioned here only as part of a direct quote.)

(and then Moderator Beedee said)

<taking the MODERATOR HAT OFF>
Frankly, the concept of ranks determined soley on the basis of the number of posts does nothing, IMO, to the forum and has no bearing on the quality of posts made. You either like to idea or are indifferent and the posts to this thread show that polarization clearly.
There are much better ways of determining a member's standing than an automatic rank granted after a number of posts. Take a look at he post count and Join date in the top right of each post. How long they have been a member and the number of posts gives you an indication of their level of activity.
...
Gaining a rank based solely on the number of posts is no diffeernat to getting promoted based on the amount of time you have spent in a job. It says NOTHING about you.


As a personal side note, perhaps the Most Humorous Response in that thread goes to Tartanraven for this:

Recognition is a great thing, and those of us that wear kilts certainly get that on a daily basis. But "rank"? Are you kidding me? Is this the military? And "vanity" titles? The last thing this forum needs is more vanity!
Again, it's a kilt based forum where we all get together supposedly to share our experiences and knowledge. It quickly became a tier-based, **** patting contest where reputation was protected like a little sisters virginity. One can easily be led to presume that a great number of people are vicariously living a life of achievement in the effort to gain "title"...

Moving on today, TattooBradley's recent post comes off the rails here:

>> "Firstly the views indicate exactly that: how many times that thread has been viewed. ... each view by each user AND guest. So, unregistered "lurkers" up the count as well. ... there are no where near 1,000 unique users ..."

-- Agreed all. But even if the number of unique visitors is 1/4 of that 1000 or ~250, less than 100 at this writing have chosen to vote. My point: many don't want the titles back. (And I am now limiting my opposition ONLY to post-counted titles.)
Some don't care, but most don't vote. Do not confuse lack of participation with lack of opinion.

>> I don't have the raw numbers or access to the sort of resources to give exact numbers, but 200-300 seems about a reasonable guess of active or even semi-active posters on this forum...

-- You err by a factor of roughly 10. Go to the top of this page, then click on Forum at the very top. When the Forum page appears, go all the way down to the tippity-bottom: current numbers are there.
At this writing, 2132 active members (whatever THAT criteria may be), and we shall discount the missing 9000 or so making up the grand total of over 11,000.

>> So, to quote those sort of numbers is inaccurate. So, since your misconception of the views equating to unique viewers figured into your guess-timation of 0.068% has been clarified, that percentage can be dismissed as well.

-- Yes, you're absolutely right, and I thank you for pointing it out. Based on 2132 active members and the 71 voting in favor of restoring titles, the correct is percentage is 0.0333% of active members in favor, or roughly half of the original calculation.

>> ...the poll holds no official weight or pull as to the titles.... It would be equally foolish of Steve to ignore or dismiss it.

-- Erh, so which is it?

I think the prior post from Zardoz, (above) nails it and sums my position nicely. Research has shown others agree: no tier-based, **** patting on XMarks.

Steve, are you listening?

Peace
JT