From time to time I see posts where members are unhappy with the forum. I have been one of these members on occasion, but have always lived by one of my grandfather's teaching -- "Always voice your concerns or disapprovals, but always offer a viable solution." If you don't have a solution even an impractical or seemingly impossible one, then maybe best not to voice your concerns. Why? Because you create an impossible situation that causes ill will and discontent. If you are dissatisfied with the layout of the forum, then voice that but also make suggestions on how you feel it could be improved. This will generate discussion that might help Ken in making changes that will best work for the majority. The same goes for any complaint. Any complaint of a personal nature should be in private to Ken and make suggestions for a resolution. Do you just want an apology, the offending member banned, and if so how long, etc? Not that Ken will do as you request, but it doesn't back him into a corner not knowing what you desire as a resolution. For example, we do have a few male members, in my opinion, that feel superior to females. By their posts, it is easy to see they go by the old puritan idea that women have their place and should never voice their opinions that disagree with males, especially if the subject discussed is one of historical male dominance. Changing their beliefs is an unfixable situation, but there are several solutions to the problem. Some of these solutions work for some, but not for others. I would hate to see any female leave the forum without at least considering viable solutions and discussing their resolves with Ken and Yvonne. What do you think would improve the forum? Is it too busy with multiple topics that are hard to find? Do you think it needs more or less moderation? Do you like the points and trophy system that earns titles? Would you like to see more positive "reaction" choices like, haha, sad, and love? I will toss out this possible resolve to the likes and trophy game. I think the fairest method is to have titles that don't denote superiority over another but rather give recognition to years on the forum with a minimum number of posts and likes required. I know that giving points for making posts in the thousands is an incentive for one to post more, but I submit that the quality of those posts is lesser than one that might make a lot fewer more in-depth and informative posts. I think a system that honors members for time on the forum with a number of posts and reactions secondary would lead to higher-quality content and fewer dust-ups. I submit that when a number of posts and likes leads to a title superior to the previous title, then it is holding out a carrot for making 10 trivial posts rather than one well-thought-out one. You see, I could have made 20 no or low-content posts in the time it has taken me to type this and edit it. I submit that SOC has two titles. When joining one gets a "First Year" status and after the first year if at least 10 posts have been made and they have received 10 likes, they receive a "One Year Veteran Status." and under that, it shows "post made" and "reactions received" This continues when they complete their 2nd, 3rd, etc. For example, I would be a " 3 Year Veteran" with 5K posts and 10K reactions. This gives me credit for accomplishment and time served without a title that might denote superiority. Any member of several years that didn't post within the year would have a banner "missing in action." Just some of my thoughts for discussion.
I believe that the trophy and status titles are set up in the forum software design, and not something specifically set up by Ken, although I am not positive about this. We have discussed the trophy situation several times before, and it is something that just happens automatically as a person has reached the designated amount of membership time in the forum, or has made a certain amount of posts. I think that all forums have some sort of version of this, depending on the forum software that is used. The issue with the amount of posts versus the quality of the posts is apparently something that can’t be changed, so people who post one word answers in the games section get the same post credit as someone who writes a long, intelligent discussion post. All of the top posters here are ones who play games, and apparently, that section can not be removed from the qualifying posts for titles, making the titles virtually useless and even ridiculous. One person near the top of the list has not even posted on the forum for almost three years, but still made enough game posts to be in a top position after all of this time.
I have no problems whatever with SOC, but it my only "social" interaction online, so I am not the best to comment.
I've no problems with this forum other than disliking the edit function being turned off (which isn't the case on the much larger forum I hang out on). As for titles based on participation, they do imply some discrimination and I don't think they're particularly useful. On the other, more popular forum I participate in (e.g., over a thousand members online a little while ago), you can create your own title or saying.
Ken, can make those changes unless he uses a version of XenForo that I am unaware of. Ken has full control to set up titles and the points system. XenForo comes with a system set up but the admin can change all that including what points are given for just as he did by offering points for using the SOC style arrangement he set up. He can also change how many points to achieve what level. It might be time-consuming and not of his interest and I know most say that they don't care, but maybe some do but are too shy to speak up because they think it makes them look petty, or like whinners or complainers that are dissatisfied. This is why I made the point that suggesting change or a complaint should come with a viable resolution.
The reason edit is turned off is in a forum like this, if one saw that their original post didn't go over as they planned, then they could go edit it, rendering many of the replies as nonsense making one reading the entire thread after edits, confused.
Please keep in mind that any system that requires someone to evaluate members' posts or other activities individually would be subjective and unsustainable, so I am pretty much restrained to those things that can be automated by the forum software, which is why I can't recognize higher-valued posts above lower valued posts in the trophies or titles system. Which doesn't mean that I don't personally recognize them. I can set the trophies, including the number of activities that have to be accomplished in order to earn them, but the software isn't capable of making value judgments that aren't numerative.
As an FYI, that doesn't seem to be a problem on a much larger, far more active forum with far more pictures, videos and content where there can be over a thousand members online at times. Are comparatively tiny sites like SOC insecure about something? As a forum member, I reserve the right to be smarter today than I was as some point previously. Personally, I prefer to correct my errors, display things learned, change my mind on things, improve/change my photos, etc.
I had already asked that the "title" be editable by each individual, or a space be included to show location if a person wants to share. I don't care one way or another about the titles since I seldom notice them, but I do agree that the games post count should be eliminated. Some high post count individuals never post in discussions at all.
There is that, and there is also the fact that, from experience, I know that eventually someone, in a fit of anger over something, will delete every one of their posts before leaving the forum in a huff, and that would render the continuity of every thread they participated incomprehensible, and if I allowed them to edit but not delete their posts, they'd edit out the content of their posts. I have had this happen on another forum that I administered and know that it would happen here. I know this from demands that I have gotten from people to delete each of their posts.
That was my point. There is no way to evaluate the content of a post other than by a human and then opinions will vary. I think that is what many discussions point out. With the current system perhaps the numbers and titles portray a different image than what is reality. With that said, thanks for clarifying that you can indeed make changes such as titles and trophies based on numbers. My suggestion was that maybe there is a better way to do this, which would appear lesser of status importance but still give credit for years as a member and number of contributions. From reading many posts by members, mainly newer and some long-time infrequent posters, that don't post in high quantity, I see a common message of feeling that they are lesser than ones with higher status. They may see high-posting members that have interacted with each other for years as being cliques or receiving special treatment. I don't think either applies to this forum, but the current trophy and status system creates a different image in their mind.
Good point Beth! After all, it is a discussion forum, not a game forum. I also will add here the need for several positive reactions if one posts about someone dying and we don't want to hit like, we could hit the sad face and that would also help since sometimes the right words just escape us. There are some posts I don't especially like, but they are funny and deserve a "haha" but it seems silly to have to make a post just to put a "haha." What emotions choices would you all like to see?
It's both. We have a game section that is important for those who enjoy the games. As someone who only occasionally participates in the games, I always hope that those who may come for the games will also join in the discussions in the other parts of the forum, as many of them do, but maybe there are those who are wishing the rest of us would play the games. Unlike topic-based forums, such as Mac computer forums or gun forums, the goals of a senior forum are to play a part in the lives of seniors, however large or small that might be, and I think we do that through the games as well as through the discussion areas. My wife plays trivia games, and I don't, but that doesn't negate the fact that she enjoys the challenges or stimulation of the trivia games, while I might watch documentaries on television or YouTube. It wouldn't be reasonable for me to suggest that she's wasting her time playing trivia games any more than it would be for her to say that my watching documentaries were a waste of time. The game section might be annoying to some, while others wish we didn't have the conspiracy and paranormal section, and others would like us to be rid of politics or religion. There are parts of the forum that I don't participate in, either because I have little interest in the topic or because I simply have nothing of value to say on those topics, and I have set them up knowing that I wouldn't be interested in them, but thinking that others might be. When people complain about the conspiracy, paranormal, politics, or religious sections of the forum, I can't help but simply wonder why they read these sections of the forum if they're so annoyed by them. Although I began this post in response to you, @Faye Fox, I am not addressing this, particularly to you. I just used your post as a lead in. But, people have left the forum angry because others were discussing things they objected to, and it just seemed to me that they felt the need to control what other people talked about, and I personally think there's already far too much of that in the world today. I think you probably agree with that. Unlike a guns forum, where it would be relatively easy to determine which topics should be included, as seniors, we have a wide range of interests, and I want to include something for everyone, or at least a wide range of people, which is why we have so many topics. As a senior myself, I know that I don't want to restrict my conversation to retirement, healthcare, pre-planned funerals, and shuffleboard, and, as the forum administrator, I don't want to restrict the forum to just the stuff I am interested in, so here we are. The games section does pose a problem separate from the others, and that's not lost on me, in that, so many of the games posts are one-word answers, yet they are counted as a post, so some of the most prolific members are prolific because they play the games a lot (but then, we also have people who will fire off four or five posts in the same thread within two minutes). I get that, and I believe that I do have the capability of not counting game posts as posts because I thought about doing that once. However, if I made that change, I think that it will be retroactive, which would demote the gamers, which could cause hard feelings among another segment of the forum. I don't want to alienate the gamers because I think that section of the forum has a role in what we do here, as well. I sort of think that insofar as someone might concern themselves with the titles and the numbers, they could view it as a challenge rather than an insurmountable hurdle. If I were to go by time in rather than posts, then we have members who have been here since 2015 and still log in and post from time to time, but who have fewer than a hundred posts during all of that time. As for the colorful tags, I think they're pretty.
I don't believe Faye or I meant to imply that we don't believe there should be a games section, just that the post count doesn't seem relevant. I know lots of people enjoy the games. None of this makes any difference in the grand scheme of things; the forum works just fine as it is.