With aal's post in mind, can anyone think of titles to replace the current titles which would be indicative of number of posts rather than level of expertise. Having a title is really just a small thing to give back to the members and we don't want confusion.

So, to kick off:
LQ Newbie
LQ Member
....? for high numbers of posts

I think there will always be this confusion because the title is used for two different things. Firstly it signifies involvement, for example root, moderator, HCL Maintainer. These titles have no bearing on post count. And, secondly it signifies post count for example newbie, member, senior member.

In any case what is wrong with the title "New Member":

< 30 posts - New Member
< 5000 posts - Member
> 5000 posts - Senior Member

I thought the argument for Newbie was that it is shorter than newcomer or new user, but seeing as there is already a Senior Member title that argument doesn't have much weight.

"Newbie" simply hearkens back to the early days of Linux and, of course, other computing systems. It is a friendly name, which is why it's not "n00bie", in the same way that the "Guru" title was added.

However, what was proposed was a system whereby members can still be given titles but the titles not be confusing to new members (or, I suppose, occasional visitors).

I like the list you have proposed, but it's a bit bland. Anyone have any ideas for sensible titles which will let everyone know that members have x post count but won't confuse newer members into thinking that people with 1000+ posts are super Linux geniuses?

Has-Posted-Little
Has-Posted-Some
Has-Posted-Much
Has-Posted-Very-Much

Nah. The member thing works well. LQ Newbie as opposed to Newbie solves the problem.

titanium_geek

Hi All,

On reflection I agree that titles to reflect forum participation are the more appropriate, provided:

a) It's clear without rtfm that that is all they mean

whilst

b) The titles can still be something for people who care about that sort of thing to aspire to (I'm thinking about some earlier posts in this thread from folk recalling looking forward to becoming senior members:- that's valid and should be encouraged).

"Senior member" and "guru" both imply expertise, but the main problem is that the glow from this carries over to a "member", who (like me) may well just have asked half a dozen beginner questions, posting several times on each of them. Meanwhile, not everyone might appreciate being called an "LQ addict".


I can't stir all this up without offering a suggestion, however awful:

New2LQ / LQUser / LQMember / LQVeteran or LQAddict


Finally, to satisfy my original concern, what prevents the software from (eg) listing the number of answers a member has posted as well as the raw number of posts? Could that provide useful feedback whilst engendering healthy competition?

regards..... andrew.

user versus member? we're all members, regardless of title.

one penguin
two penguins
three penguins
four penguins
moderator penguin
hcl penguin
(distro person) penguin
root (penguin)

F1,F2,F3,F4,F5 (hot air, lol)

white (3 posts) green (old newbie) yellow (member) orange (senior member) red (guru/adict) (torino scale)

seriously though- I think this question perhaps could be relegated to the "why is there no (distro) forum?" category.

titanium_geek

Hi Titanium Geek,

As an Australian, I do understand the cultural necessity of deprecating any discussion about titles.

But what does it mean when one joins so actively in a discussion one disclaims as irrelevant?

The fact is that different people and different cultures do attach weight to such names, and there is also a solid, practical reason for getting it right.

As yet another example, I personally would feel more comfortable contributing answers (to the best of my incredibly limited ability) if I could be labelled "newbie" rather than "member". Which is why I wanted my newbieness back. Well may you say I shouldn't be proffering answers at all, but my feeling is that people can sometimes be too new to be helped by experts, like the guy who didn't know how to su, or even what a terminal was, who was recently being advised to upgrade his kernel.

regards..... andrew.

Do you want avatars as well?

I look forward to becoming a LQ addict! Because I am a LQ addict!

andrew- what I am saying, is that the titles are irrelevant in regards to linux knowledge.
Don't worry about it... Keep asking and answering questions- focus on the topic, not the title.

The "why no distro" comment is referring to the fact that this question pops up regularly- like the "why no distro" threads. Searches help.

titles are a bit of fun- hailing your contribution to LQ. But they don't mean much in regards in your ability to ask and answer questions.

titanium_geek

Well, it seems this one is going nowhere, so take your advice I will.

However..... The problem remains that the titles are not in practice perceived as "irrelevant in regards to linux knowledge". Amongst all the responses on this, no one has dealt with that. Please consider the quality of responses. Sarcasm you can find. Repetition you can certainly find. That's only to be expected, but what about anyone actually addressing the merits of the argument? One post acknowledges that there might be something to rectify. No one refuted or even discussed that: the rest basically revert to either proposing or deriding specific solutions to the titles problem (NB: Changing the titles may not even be the best response to the problem). No one even tried to show me why this is not a problem for forum neonates.


And why does it keep coming up? Could there be something to it?

If I failed to pick up what the titles weren't about for over a year, then there most likely are others who'll also have been making the same mistake. (i.e. Those who don't know enough Unix to sort the advice into wheat and chaff, who also had not previously used other forums). But they won't visit this sort of place in the forums, at least not early on.

Result: the people who hear the suggestion are limited to: a) those who are too advanced ever to be affected by it and so far removed that they can't even relate to it in the first place and b) (arguably?) those with some kind of interest in the status quo.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it, but thanks to all concerned for taking the time to consider this.

regards..... andrew.

(Not an avatar advocate).

I found this thread out of curiosity about this "LQ Newbie" title.
I've been around in the IT business for decades and was already patching operating systems when computers had only 4K of RAM (yes, that's 4K, not 4M of 4G). At that time I could disassemble code by reading the hex bytes - but processors were a lot simpler then.
As my signature says, I've been using Slackware for more than 10 years now, but just never have been active on these forums.
I still mess around, compile parts of Slackware, etc.

I found it funny to be called a "newbie" here but I don't mind. I agree with another poster in this thread that we will always be a Newbie in some aspects. When a new version of anything comes out, I like to discover what changed, test all kinds of parameters, etc. Sometimes this puts me into trouble (when something stops working), but for me this is where the fun starts!

welcome, niels! Of course, you are new to LQ... though obviously not to the computing scene!

LQ newbie is a good title, I like it.

titanium_geek

I don't.

I would still prefer "Junior Member", "LQ Beginner", "LQ Newcomer", "New to LQ", even "New2LQ".

Big respect for niels.horn. If he doesn't mind being called a newbie with all his experience I don't mind being called a "newbie".

Which is what I am, even though I'm a "member"...who still hates trying to compile from source.

But then again, that might be the answer...

Level 1: hasn't heard of source code.
Level 2: thinks source is something to do with rivers.
Level 3: knows what source is.
Level 4: has trashed system by trying to compile source.
Level 5: has NOT trashed system by trying to compile source, but has lost Open Office in the process.
Level 6: has finally discovered that the source of all the problems is Microsoft.