The Watering Hole

First an FYI for those out there adding attachments.  Yes, you can only upload one at a time, but if you do it too quick (in less than 25 seconds) you'll be given a message (just like you did at the Hole) and will have to repost after the waiting time is up.  HOWEVER, unlike at the Hole, you can lose some of your post since it wipes out the filename for your attachment.  So remember to put that back in before you retry.

Also, I noticed that it marks a topic as "hot" if it has 5 replies and "very hot" if it has 15.  Those seem low for the likes of us and should probably be closer to 20 and 40.

Finally, although I like the name "Keg Tapper," it only took 100 replies to get to three stars??!

I'm guessing that there's only five stars maximum and, knowing us, we'll probably all be there before this forum is a month old so I'd suggest changing the levels to something like this:

No star (if possible) = 0-9 posts
One star = 10-99 posts
Two stars = 100-999 posts
Three stars = 1,000-4,999 posts
Four stars = 5,000-9,999 posts
Five stars = 10,000 posts and up

What do you guys think?

Oh yeah, and then there's this...  ;)

CraigBert — Aug 01, 2008First an FYI for those out there adding attachments.  Yes, you can only upload one at a time, but if you do it too quick (in less than 25 seconds) you'll be given a message (just like you did at the Hole) and will have to repost after the waiting time is up.  HOWEVER, unlike at the Hole, you can lose some of your post since it wipes out the filename for your attachment.  So remember to put that back in before you retry.

Also, I noticed that it marks a topic as "hot" if it has 5 replies and "very hot" if it has 15.  Those seem low for the likes of us and should probably be closer to 20 and 40.

I'll set it higher... how about 15 and 30?

CraigBert — Aug 01, 2008Finally, although I like the name "Keg Tapper," it only took 100 replies to get to three stars??!

I'm guessing that there's only five stars maximum and, knowing us, we'll probably all be there before this forum is a month old so I'd suggest changing the levels to something like this:

No star (if possible) = 0-9 posts
One star = 10-99 posts
Two stars = 100-999 posts
Three stars = 1,000-4,999 posts
Four stars = 5,000-9,999 posts
Five stars = 10,000 posts and up

What do you guys think?

How about:
One star = 1-99 posts
Two stars = 100-500 posts
Three stars = 501-2500 posts
Four stars = 2501-5000 posts
Five stars = 5000 + posts

Not that it really matters, but I think if you make it to 5000 posts, you are probably a guy who deserves 5 stars.  The other option, of course, is I could add a reputation system where people "rep" each other points based on how useful their advice is, etc.  Though this has the downside of sparking some quarrelsome issues (why didn't you rep me?, etc.) a reputation system might be more useful than a pur mass system... there's no guarantee that 5000 or 10,000 posts means they are all meaningful or useful... it could be 5000 posts of smilies...  

Also, I can add more member groups, dependent on posts or not... For example, we could add 6 stars for 10,000 posts.  Whatever you guys want.  The current layout is:
Barkeep, 5 stars, 5000 posts
Vintner, 4 stars, 2501 posts
Keg Tapper, 3 stars, 501 posts
Waitstaff, 2 stars, 100 posts
Cupholder, 1 star, 1 post

I'm open to other titles, and uber categories.

Heh, if you were only counting usefull posts, then your original settings might have been a bit high!  LOL!  ;)

My advice: I don't care for fucking stars...   8-) :)  it's an unuseful feature.

I'd prefer a "show option" for the replies: last one first ( reverse order show)

I like the NAMES.
They so Un-Holey.  :D

Randy

strategery — Aug 01, 2008I like the NAMES.
They so Un-Holey.  :D

Randy

Interesting.  Since they appear to be completely related to the Hole.

i would'nt even make 5 stars if you counted my wh posts.
b

Sounds good to me.