I have looked at how LQ ranks its users. I was astonished to notice that users are simply ranked by the number of posts they have. While this is a good way of recognising long time members, I find that misleading to especially new users. Of great concern is the title "Guru" that is given when someone reaches 5000 posts. I would have OKed it if only 'Addict' was used.
Most new users (even old users, and indeed everyone) know and believe that 'Gurus' are well knowledgeable, experienced professionals, and their posts are ususally treated as such. On the contrary, these 'gurus' could be merely 'addicts' or 'spammers' who will post any one line useless replies to any new post that comes. Some could even offer misleading, trivial, vague and 'no new information' help and it can unfortunately be a case of churning out posts to reach a certain status.
While I believe that most Linux users are smart people who are very responsible, I understand that in every establishment, there are always those that want to misuse facilities or opportunities.
As a group of 'smart people' i believe linux users should come up with a 'smart' 'weighted' and balanced way or ranking users if they want to include title like 'Gurus' otherwise, it will be best to use titles which are not misleading only, like (newbie, member, senior memember(elder) and addict, and DROP out guru)
Some members that I well respect, as I have realised, have been only replying to posts with subject they are actually very much knowledgeable in, and they have done great job in offering accurate, spot-on and well informing help and answers. Since these are the true GURUs, they tend not to have much time to spam posts (due to their busy consultancy work etc.) so they will probably take 10 years to reach 1000 posts. The current ranking system purely ignores this fact. It doesnt take into account the quality of posts. I know smart pple out there can suggest something better. Thats my opinion.

The difficulty lies in automating the process of determining a quality post. I don't think there is a system which can yet discriminate between a post that was good with respect to the question and one which was utterly useless.

I think the recently implemented Thanks system goes some way to addressing this problem; those users who regularly post useful answers will (may?) receive more Thanks from the people they were responding to.

If you know of a different way, I'm sure Jeremy would be all ears.

Also, I've asked the mods to move this to LQ Suggestions and Feedback.

edit: The title Guru is one chosen by the member in question; the choice after 5000 posts is either Guru or LQ Addict. See http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...faq#faq_newbie.

It (hopefully) may not surprise you to learn you're not the first to express such opinions. Try the search button.
I have cajoled jeremy consistently about this - my advice, ignore all the rankings. Judge posts (and posters) by the intrinsic quality (or otherwise) of posts.

An ongoing discussion. Search for "newbie addict guru" in LQ_suggestions_&_Feedback forum. You will get 17 threads on this topic. Personally I agree with syg00: ignore the ranks!

Moved: This thread is more suitable in <Suggestions and Feedback> and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

I guess the problem with the choice of 'guru' or 'addict' is that even if someone doesn't want the title 'guru' for ego reasons, 'addict' has negative connotations, so people will choose guru to avoid that. I doubt that many people really give much consideration to the rank of the poster though when reading a post.

I don't let post counts affect my judgment of how smart I think someone is on a message board. Any advice given here should be researched and tested before being used by the person needing help. Once you've been around a message board long enough you know the people who's advice is of a "guru" quality, versus someone who is speaking out of their ass.

some members go as far as posting rhetoric questions just to buff up their posts, even in this particular forum, just check some of the threads you will notice.

My suggestion is: (posts/(thanks+1))/months_as_member
If your score is above 8, --> Learner
If your score is less than 8, --> User
If your score is less than 2, --> Advanced User
If your score is less than 1, --> Expert
If your score is less than 0.8, --> Guru

Then all users whose accounts are 3 months old or less --> LQ Newbies

Rounding to three decimal places only!

examples:
6000 posts
99 thanks
3 years as member
(6000/100)/36 = 1.667 --> Advanced User (season user, has been around for long, managed to learn and offer some useful help)

6000 posts
9 thanks
3 years as member
(6000/10)/36 = 16.67 --> Learner (takes ages to learn)

1000 posts
9 thanks
2 years as member
(1000/10)/24 = 4.167 --> User (has been around, but largely seeking help)

200 posts
29 thanks
8 months as member
(200/30)/8 = 0.833 --> Expert (relatively new, but has offered spot-on advice)

100 posts
9 thanks
1 years as member
(100/10)/12 = 1.2 --> Advanced User (few posts, but is 10% of them really helped others, the he knows what he is doing)

280 posts
29 thanks
6 months as member
(280/30)/7 = 1.333 --> Advanced User (a knowledgeable person, who offered tremendous help, but still very new to LQ for us to classify as guru, hence adv user status)

280 posts
29 thanks
12 months as member
(280/30)/13 = 0.718 --> Guru (a knowledgeable person, having been around for some time now, can now qualify)

Note that the lats 2 examples differ only in the period spent as member. This illustrates The following:
It fends off newbies who just rush to offer (although good) help with the aim to reach guru status in a short time.
Although the last example easily attained Guru after 12 months, you will notice that the assumption was no further posts were made, and no futher thanks were awarded. If however, more posts were submitted with no increase in thanks, you will find it will be difficult to attain Guru status.

The whole point of ranking becomes interesting now!! just my opinion

Hi, I like your idea.

It's interesting how sums can be made up.

But isn't a year 12 months long, ie your examples...

Any way it's a nice idea, but just how many people really post for status reasons only?

Would people who genuinely ask and answer questions to the best of their ability be penalised by your system?

The maths probably doesn't make a lot of difference unless you are a programmer of something.

That would make me an expert, but I don't consider myself one, I'm still learning, and there's a lot to learn.

<edit> maybe contributions could be used as well, being a community-supporting type of roll must hold some significance(?)</edit>

No offence intended, my friend, ;-)

Cheers. Glenn

Sorry, I have corrected my math. surely a member for 8 years would have deserved more, having been around for such a long time eg.

6000 posts
99 thanks
8 years as member
(6000/100)/96 = 0.625 --> Guru

(but also note tthat he is at the uper end of that scale, close to 0.8)

My System doesnt punish those who ask and answer genuinely, because it can recognise someone as an expert with only 12 posts, imagine!!!!

From my calculation, your score is 1.714, which DOESNT qualify to be an expert!!!! but an Advanced User.
Still you have been labelled a 'Senior Member' do you consider yourself 'Senior'? In what respect? If you can agree with that title, then for sure you should be able to accept being labelled 'Advanced User' of some sort, especially with 15 thanks, noone can deny that you at least know what you are doing.

Nobody ever said experts dont learn anyway. Most of them in real life are 'consultants' who 'LEARN' with each and every case that a 'Client' brings.

ABOVE ALL, my system primary gaol is to add FUN to the whole thing

I hope this makes sense.

The other problem with the proposed math is that the "thanks" system hasn't been around all that long. Long time members with thousands of posts didn't have a chance to be "thanked" for their fair percentage before the "thanks" system was in place. You'd have to separate out number of posts since the system was implemented and possibly extropolate into the past for the rest of them... so

and then you might want to reward people for longevity somehow too..

It all sounds too complicated and hardly worth the bother. It's pretty easy to see whose advice is worthwhile after a little experience reading. Mine is mostlyharmless.

Yes, that's true, the thanking system is quite new,

My community-supporter idea should have mentioned tutorials, whitepapers and informative blogs.

But still, if we did not share ideas, where would we be?

Cheers Glenn

This is already weighted in the original math. If you check closely you will realise that long standing members are well rewarded, eg. if you check my latest correction,
A similar member who only has been around for three years will only be an Advanced User.

My understanding of the thanking system is:

If a New user searches for an answer to their problem in the forum, and find the solution in someone else's post, IRREGARDLESS of the age of that post, the newbie can still award thanks to that post!!!

and I have done just that, in the past when I joined and was searching for a solution. I was actually impressed by the solutions that were given to my exactly similar problem.

How about everyone starts at Guru and gets points deducted for posting dumb comments?!?

-1