People are leveling up already...
 

It surprises me that some people are on level 4 and 5

So exactly, how do you level up?

The lower levels are obviously easier to get to just as they are in a video game. To level up you just post. But don't spam or when you die you'll be raped in the seventh layer of hell for all eternity.

First, see bobo's post. In effect, it has to do with the number of posts you have.

Oh okay, Thank You fpr the tip ^_^

I'm a little new so I ddin't really know>_>

Ah, thank you Snowknight, I didn't know the algorith to it before now. I did know that it was on some sort of exponential growth curve, requiring more posts to advance the more levels you had, but not (log10 [Postcount]^3) + 1.

You level up by posting; this is rather obvious, really. Each successive level requires a proportionately higher cumulative postcount to acquire. The lower levels are simple, as they require only a handful of posts each. Once you hit level 25 or so, however, it begins to plateau. Only the most dedicated members reach level 50 or higher.

However, posting for the sake of levelling up is tantamount to spam and will earn you a bad reputation that's hard to overcome.

(Incidentally, those who've managed to do this have gone on to become moderators, oddly. This shouldn't be an enticement to mass-posting though, since it takes a long time to reestablish oneself as a quality poster after being labelled a spammer.)

However, postcount is not a race. There was a period of six months or so in 2003 when this was hotly debated and the Top Ten Posters list had its public link removed to discourage post-racing amongst a few then-prominent members.

This subject is more appropriate for Board Support, so I'm moving it there.

Press LEFT RIGHT A B A B SELECT START to skip 5 levels ='D

Don't worry about people like me, we just want to keep this place runnin' :doggy:

That's definitely not the current system. If it were, my 6 posts prior to making this one would put me in level 3, but I'm currently still sitting in level 1.

Plus, in order to get to level 25, you'd need log(x^3) = 24, log(x) = 8, or x = 100,000,000 posts.

The parentheses are mismatched in bobo's equation; I believe he left off one at the very beginning or inserted an extra one after the three. I think the formula should be:

log(POSTCOUNT) ^ 3 + 1

I took a few random high, medium, and low posters and tested that formula, and everything agrees with the displayed level numbers.

this is what I do when I'm bored

Just remove post count entirely, ok.

Post count is a statistic you need it if you run a message board ok

It's not working.. ='(


I think Megalith meant to say remove the user level?

We should just remove Megalith's post count entirely. :tpg:

We should remove Megalith entirely.

I was looking over Megalith's posts yesterday, and out of 27, 6 had been deleted by various moderators.

Almost 25% of your posts being deleted isn't a good sign. I predict a warning soon.

At least the board is active, which is a plus.

This man says the truth, he should be rewarded for that.

Just a random question here, that relates to this; will the Wall of Shame be coming back in the near future, or was it just a one time thing?

I think Megalith is on to something here, guys. Remove levels and hide postcounts to all but administrators and moderators.

I've been behind that particular suggestion for quite some time now.

Yeah, God forbid we ever leave anything fun on the boards. The Internet is serious business after all.

Ohh... that does make more sense.

Thanks for clearing that up! Seriously.

Instead of displaying levels or post count, we should integrate a graphical spectrum that changes color from red to green depending on the amount of posts that a user has per day. This will show you who the most active members are, and the least active. I think that this would be a healthier alternative to displaying numerical levels, since levels only widen the gap between new and old members.

I think it's practical. It emphasizes on how often a user contributes, rather than how many times he or she had contributed. Levels are supposed to represent how active a member is, but all it does is infuse a false sense of superiority. Arguably, the spectrum would do the same, but since it is highly variable with only a few color values, it would actually encourage participation in the forums. And though it may encourage a user to post more to raise his level to green, the user has no real incentive to spam posts because of the spectrum's limited color values.

You could even overlay the spectrum with some witty text. Who knows. The red side of the spectrum may say "Why am I even here," or the greenest side of the spectrum may say "Why are you addicted to a video game forum."

I like Mega's idea, but that could be mixed with what we have, that way those who did contribute many posts and get a high level still get that recognition (if you want to call it that), and then the activity can check activity, say, within the last few months, and that can color the level.

Nope. 5 in GGMD and 1 in General Discussion.

Now that we have percentages, I can say I'm 99% sure I've got the right formula, since they correspond to the first two decimal places of the result (truncated, not rounded).

Also, that coloring idea is neat, although I'd be in the red all the time. :(