|
I'll agree pretty strongly with Larry about the designation. The junior/senior/advanced member designation isn't particularly useful (since it relates only to # of posts), and I wouldn't miss it.
Even the exalted "moderator" status isn't significant outside board management issues. I definitely do *not* know more than other people on many issues (although I do try not to post where I know in advance that I'm stupid (sometimes it's hard to know that, however)).
So, I agree with Larry that you've got to take responsibility for deciding whose posts are worth reading and whose advice is worth following. It may take a while, but you'll get the hang of it. I'll give one hint, however . . . anything by Dan John is worth committing to memory.
One other thing that seems obvious (to me), but maybe isn't: The "rating" that appears on some posts reflects only what (anonymous) readers have chosen to enter about that post. It is sticky to the post itself, and I've never thought of the rating as being applied to the person making the post.
In general, the norm around here seems to be that people tend to use only the two extremes (5 stars = great, or 1 star = lousy). On average, I would say an awful lot of posts on these boards are pretty good, so really great ones are rare (but still deserve to be marked as such).
Really lousy ones are even rarer, and often don't get marked . . . we just tend to ignore them.
Incidentally, since the ratings reflect only a couple of people's opinion about a post, they don't get a person suspended, or "promoted". Mostly, they just draw attention to good stuff.
Dave
|
01-03-2005, 02:56 PM
Similar Threads
