Silly Title wanted, or not!

[Tattoo Bradley]

Again, I'm uncertain here as to the meaning of "honorary" title. If it refers to the extra, saltired bar just under your user name I still would like to know how those are determined, but if it's internally bestowed I'm OK with them. Perhaps their sudden removal was offensive to some. But if "honorary" refers to the numeric post-count titles, then I support their removal and applaud their demise.

I, as most everyone else, am NOT referring to the auto-titles the software was assigning based on post count. By honorary I am referring to the custom titles (ie. Kilted Ghillie, Kilted Writer, Kilted Juggernaut, Kilted Dragon etc.) As to assignment and history of those, it has been discussed at great length in this closed thread.

Nor do they tell the truth you seek. At this writing, 68 members out of the many thousand forum members have voted in favor, and that's only 3/4 of those taking time to vote. Fewer than 100 have voted and yet over 1000 have viewed the topic. Right now, the tally stands at 0.068% of viewers in favor, and even less for all members (>2100 active, >11,000 total)

The results are statistically insignificant as a current indicator of the massed rabble's opinion.

To get a more accurate reading, perhaps someone could start a non-partisan thread way up at top of the forum list: "There is a poll being taken, and your opinion is important. Please read this thread, then vote." (Not sure the Forum Lairds would tolerate that, though.)

I'm also not sure that an overwhelming result either way would sway The Laird one bit from his intended course. And that's probably not a bad thing.

But it's still a great conversation. Thanks

Kind regards,
JT

Firstly the views indicate exactly that: how many times that thread has been viewed. It does not indicate that 1,000+ unique users have viewed a thread. It counts each view by each user AND guest. So, unregistered "lurkers" up the count as well. I alone can probably be held to about 15 or so of the views on this thread. In fact, I would be willing to bet there are no where near 1,000 unique users visiting this site on any given day, much less viewing a specific thread.

As to the <100 voters: I also feel that's a more fair pool than the "many thousand members" as many thousand of those are not active. In fact many of those thousand have 1 post or even 0. They registered and never came back. So, to quote those sort of numbers is inaccurate. So, since your misconception of the views equating to unique viewers figured into your guesstimation of 0.068% has been clarified, that percentage can be dismissed as well.

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 (which is of course the group concnerned and affected by the changes.) If 100~ vote, and the rest do not, then they've indicated they don't really care one way or the other.

This is not a democracy and the poll holds no official weight or pull as to the titles. It was initiated by a member, and not the XMTS staff. To assume that the results of this thread will dictate the fate of the titles would be foolish. However, it is a very good picture into the view from "down here" and the reception and perception of a very brash and sudden change by management. It would be equally foolish of Steve to ignore or dismiss it. My first post was a reference to just that.

[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!

"WOOF,WWWOOOOOF!

In "Saarlooswolfhond" (Leendert_Saarloos) dogbreed, that means:
It behooves us all to be diligent in this poll (cabercatch) to be close to the heart and sensitive to the friend in the post inter play exchange.

Since each member is permitted one vote and the automatic thread lock-down occurs six months from LAST POST to thread, I felt it prudent to have the process remain open for three months. Many hundreds of members might logon, notice the poll and vote. Recently I went nearly three months and didn't even look at XMTS. There are other things happening in the world. A 90 day poll is adequate time enough to catch most of the would-be participating-voters in the poll.
It aint official.
HOWEVER, it seems by its appearance in the percentage values, at this point that the relevance of humor and specifically humorous recognition of various members is highly important and can carry upward to an official voice in lobbying FOR the elements in favor of caricatures - via silly titles - of members by having auto-generated & specific honorary titles.
arf"

[Zardoz]

As many have noted, it seems the majority of active members liked the titles, I know I liked being a "Kilted Elder" and thought it would be cool if I was ever granted a honourary title as well.

I would rather see the titles come back, and the post counter go away, or just be on the user pages. The post count is what drives a lot of forum post whores.

[CameronCat]

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

[morrison]

The POLL asked "Are titles acceptable, Keep them, Don't care"

There was no outright inclusion or exclusion of either auto-generated or honorary titles to be implied or inferred.

Therein I felt that without too much thought, by default all were included.

Wooof, in Parson Russell Terrier that means;
"I have a secret stash of good marrow bones in a gopher hole. I'll give you a good one if you'd like! arf"

[Tattoo Bradley]

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.

And if you completely read it it should also be clear thta this was ALWAYS the case, even before the removal.


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.

If one feels their opinion matters it's up to them to voice it. If you do not voice it then it's irrelevant. Is that not the point of the poll? The OP asking for opinions?

>> 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.

There is clear error in this. As you point out, the criteria for "active" is completely unknown. Try a more aggressive approach. Look at the members list and their visit dates. Yesterday after posting I looked and found that less than 1,000 registered members have visited the forum since January 1 of this year. There were closer 300-400 that have logged in this week. What the module crediting 2132 active members is basing it is beyond me. But, I don't think there are many who would consider someone not logging in for 4 months an "active user." Also, at my count yesterday via the members list there are actually closer to 9,000 registered users. So, again, where that module pulls it's numbers is conflicting to the members list...

As the OP has pointed out the poll will remain open for a set time. It's not locked or private. If someone chooses not to voice then their opinion wasn't thought highly enough by that poster to begin with, so who cares?

>> 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.

I stand by your percentage being grossly skewed. Your "updated percentage" is even more laughable.

>> ...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?

Erh, exactly what I said...

While this is not an official poll, and the fate of the titles is not being decided by it, Steve would be foolish to ignore the feelings of the members (which is what this poll is: a collection of the feelings of the members aka the lifeblood of this forum)

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.

The OP has clarified that he intended "all titles" to be the subject. I admit, I was unclear of this as well.

Just for clarification, I personally see removing the canned (post count based titles) as a good thing. I, however, see removing of the honorary titles (those given by the moderators and owner at the time) as a very bad thing.

Steve, are you listening?

Yes Steve, are you?

[Canuck]

Cameroncat, I'm not sure how serious I should take you. For one, you haven't bothered to fill out your profile. and two, your join date is the 10th of this month. Which implies you don't know how this forum was run previously, or if you were lurking you decided at that time not to participate.
I am pleased that you are exploring other threads. A lot has happened on this forum over the past 6 years.
With regards to the numbers I too am baffled there is a bug in the counter, having said that, if you go to the members list and click on join dates you will go through many pages where there are only a few members who are active.

[Zardoz]

Since I'm being quoted, let me make myself relentlessly clear on this subject;

I liked, and am in favor of returning, the auto-generated post count titles like 'Kilted Warrior', 'Kilted Elder', etc. I also like, and am in favor of the honorific or 'vanity' titles, either as descriptive or humorous references to certain members and their contributions.

I strongly disagree with the statment in our FAQ page that says;
"Post Ranks and Special Titles have now become more about separating us instead of bringing us together."

I guess I never saw an example of this "separating" factor, I know sometimes newbies would ask about the titles, but I always saw those questions and answers as a way to help them engage with the XMarks clan, not make them feel bad about not posting enough.

Were there really some sad sacks on here that felt threatened because they were not a 'kilted FNG" or whatever yet? If so, was it worth making the place bland and personality free to the point of alienating some of our more "energetic" and unique members just to keep them?

I think the post ranks were a good way for the members to get a little reward for sticking around and making a contribution. If post ranks are such a bad thing, quit showing the post count number on the post headers as well, thats what drives a lot of the post whores on here that run up like 7000 posts without saying anything useful.

(and I'm NOT saying that everyone that has thousands of posts is a post whore!)

(or that all post whores never make a useful contribution!)

I'll sum my opinion up for you;

Post Ranks, or "tier-based, **** patting" as some might say, Like them!

Special Titles, Like them too!

Post Count Number, not a fan, but don't really care.

[morrison]

Good words Z
To you Zardoz and to all readers; I'd like, if you're willing, to share an observation on differentiating between the terms title and rank.

I believe the term "title" implies less and inference can be easily drawn in regard to status or perception of status;

I believe the term "rank" implies more and inference can be much more easily drawn in regard to status or perception of status;

Therefore in reference to one term or the other I would be pursuing a particular definition while presenting a point in the use of a specific term.

How do y'all feel 'bout that?

[CDNSushi]

FWIW (which doesn't even amount to a hill of beans on a privately-owned forum that I down't own, but I've already pointed that out elsewhere)... I also don't much like the statement in the FAQ regarding titles being something that separates us.

I have been to many, many forums, and each one that has none of the ones that had "titles" or "ranks" seemed to be any more separated or dysfunctional or disjointed than the ones that didn't. Again, it's not a mark of status, but a statement of fact. Again alluding to my gaming, most guilds in World of Warcraft have a similar system... Some use a military-style system, others a more creative one... In fact, some guild masters go out of their way to put together a crazy system... One user on a WoW-related forum writes:

My guild is called:
Creamy Nuggets
The GM is the Nugget Supreme
The officers Gold Nuggets
Then the ranks are:
Creamy Nugget
Chicken Nugget
Lil Nugget

How awesome is that? Don't want to be a Lil Nugget? Too bad. Either level your character or join another guild... But I've never seen so much complaining and humming and hawing about the impact of titles as I have here on this forum.

Conversely, one of the CRAPPIEST forums I've ever been a member of, uses "karma" for its members. If a member posts a message you like, you can award them with "good karma" and if not, you can "smite" them... Under each user's name you can see how many karma points and how many smites they have. THAT system sucks. You've got those who really don't care, trolls who try to accumulate as many smites as they can, and those members who, one way or another, end up becoming unpopular and accumulating more and more smites, until they are too embarrassed to show themselves and have started a new account just so they can start from zero...

Until and unless XMTS adopts such a system, I just can't see the system of ranks as being so offensive that it warranted being pulled offline for the reasons stated. Seems like quite an overreaction to me.