| 4:25 pm on Jun 16, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Ok, I agree and I've updated it, but the numbers are a bit different.
300 senior, 150 preferred, 75 full, 20 jr.
| 6:48 pm on Jun 16, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Thank you Brett,
Lost a couple of grey hairs.
| 1:44 pm on Jun 18, 2001 (gmt 0)|
neat...the prospect of becoming a senior member before I really had a clue was worying me :)
| 2:47 pm on Jun 18, 2001 (gmt 0)|
NO Please Dont!!
AAAGGGHH!!! HELP! HELP HELP!
I recently applied for another job and received an e-mail form my potential employers today rejecting my application on the grounds that I lied in my CV!
I bragged about how I actively took part in Webmaster disscussions and was a proud SENIOR member of WMW!
I don't know what happened but I guess they checked up on me and now they think I lied to try and impress them.
| 2:59 pm on Jun 18, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Direct them to this thread.
You have been contributor here since March.
| 3:53 pm on Jun 18, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Its OK...don't panic, nothing to worry about
Everything is under control
| 8:34 pm on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
So number of posts is the criterion for senior membership. Does that mean I could spam in by just answering a whole bunch of questions 'yes' or 'no'?
| 8:40 pm on Jun 21, 2001 (gmt 0)|
How else could you decide? You could do it by date joined but that would be crazy too as somebody could have joined last year, never posted and they would be a senior member.
I think its a reasonable though rough guide to how active that person is.
| 8:44 am on Jun 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
typophile: "So number of posts is the criterion for senior membership. Does that mean I could spam in by just answering a whole bunch of questions 'yes' or 'no'?"
| 8:49 am on Jun 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
| 9:09 am on Jun 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
lets make that a definite and categorical...
| 9:10 am on Jun 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
But the 'Brett Tabke Algorithm' doesn't seem to count multiple 'posts' on the same topic true posts, registering only the first. For instance Knighty has remained at 173 throughout this thread.
I was sad enough to be looking forward to a change in status.... and now the pot of gold has been moved further away!
| 9:33 am on Jun 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
The point of the post count is too let members know who the contributors are - people watch that stuff to see who the real players are in a forum. I think it is important. We noticed a trend early last fall, where some members were spending days in Foo, just to up their post count. So, replies in the Local Category [webmasterworld.com] don't go towards the total (only the first poster in the thread gets ticked). I think that is fair. It maintains the system integrity and keeps everyone honest. We are more about quality than quantity.
| 10:43 am on Jun 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I am fully agree!
I was enough lucky to be one of the kings for just a day: it was great for me.
I hope that when I will be close to reach the new target, you will not increase the figures!
I will try to post useful tip.
| 2:41 pm on Jun 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
oh, the humanity.. i've been demoted...
Guess I'll just have to work harder. ;)
| 6:05 am on Jun 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
How many members are there in WmW ?
| 4:42 am on Jul 11, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like posts I've made recently in threads in the Local Category have been added to my total...or is this all part of the 'Brett Tabke Algorithm'? ;)
|replies in the Local Category don't go towards the total (only the first poster in the thread gets ticked) |
| 6:52 am on Jul 11, 2001 (gmt 0)|
fresh *bug*. Thanks.