January 11th, 2013 at 11:07:04 AM
permalink
It would be cool to be able to see the "Top Contributors" past just the top 5. I don't know if this was intentionally left off or just an oversight. But when you click on the "Top Contributors" link above the top 5 listing, it just takes you to the alphabetical list of users.
Not important, of course, but I'd like to see where I fall in the list :)
Not important, of course, but I'd like to see where I fall in the list :)
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
January 11th, 2013 at 11:11:55 AM
permalink
" Not important, of course, but I'd like to see where I fall in the list :) "
You have been nominated for the Hall of Shame anyway,
You have been nominated for the Hall of Shame anyway,
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
January 11th, 2013 at 11:21:16 AM
permalink
aces I ran the numbers you are 39th
The bet will not be paid- not now not ever
January 11th, 2013 at 11:30:28 AM
permalink
Quote: strictlyAPaces I ran the numbers you are 39th
Nice, did you just crawl the website or are you joking?
If you are joking, maybe I'll work on that...while I'm at work...not working...
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
January 11th, 2013 at 1:40:42 PM
permalink
I think that is a terrible idea. Why give people an incentive to just post more without regard to quality. I think the whole idea of showing how many posts users have is counter-productive.
Order from chaos
January 11th, 2013 at 1:44:12 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichI think that is a terrible idea. Why give people an incentive to just post more without regard to quality. I think the whole idea of showing how many posts users have is counter-productive.
I don't know what forum software Mike uses, but I noticed some sites use software that allows members to "vote" on the quality of a person's posts; which affects their ranking.
January 11th, 2013 at 2:01:44 PM
permalink
I vote for getting rid of that function altogether.
Who cares who the top contributors are, it has
nothing to do with anything.
Who cares who the top contributors are, it has
nothing to do with anything.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail."
Gore Vidal
January 11th, 2013 at 2:02:12 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichI think that is a terrible idea. Why give people an incentive to just post more without regard to quality. I think the whole idea of showing how many posts users have is counter-productive.
What's the incentive? Prove to others that wouldn't care anyway that you are "King of the Internet"?
On my private poker forum, I was the 3rd most verbose in my posts I think, so I am never making high post quantity.
January 11th, 2013 at 2:12:28 PM
permalink
Quote: GHI don't know what forum software Mike uses, but I noticed some sites use software that allows members to "vote" on the quality of a person's posts; which affects their ranking.
This forum software is custom written by JB.
I understand the opposition to the idea, although I don't agree. I think it's harmless, people are going to run their mouth off on the internet regardless of anything. So without further ado, I present to you: The ranking of members!
Took me about an hour or so to hack it together in perl. Note this list is not auto-updating, it is a snapshot
Quote: strictlyAPaces I ran the numbers you are 39th
So either you were joking, or you did the same thing I did and confused me with aceofspades :). If so, props for hacking it together in 14 minutes, a paltry amount of time compared to me.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
January 11th, 2013 at 2:13:16 PM
permalink
Typical computer guy, counting from 0 :)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829