Silly Title wanted, or not!

[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?