Top participants

[Jesseham]

What's it based on?  As of this morning, I am above someone who has 100 more points than I do.

Is it just based on post count or is there some secret Adobe judge, reading everyone's posts?

[Gast]

The only good thing about keeping Top Participants is that it generates communication amoungst posters pointing out the inconsistancy of application on different forum pages.

Another positive is that it helps fill in the wasted space on the right side.

[Captiv8r]

Hi there

Personally I tend to ignore that the top participants list is even there. I'm more interested in the "meat" of the thread.

I can't help but wonder if in some cases it causes what I'm going to dub as "The knighthood effect". Occasionally helpful Harry suddenly is knighted and becomes Sir Post A Lot in nothing but a pure effort to watch himself climb the ranks of the list.

I'm not saying I've seen this anywhere. Just that I view it as a potential hazard.

Good Karma and happy Friday to all! Rick

[Gast]

The hazard is real because the base upon what the top participants is built upon is not solid. There are no rules holding it nor guiding it. People have to guess thus causing confusion. Post 16 and 19 are  fine examples of the confusion.

[Gast]

Nobody reads post #1.

[Fr__Watson]

Nobody reads post #1.

Or post #4!

[Captiv8r]

Hmmm, perhaps the message name should be changed. Use an ominous looking icon and big bold letters that say something secret like...

Forum admins only! DO NOT READ!!!

[Gast]

Captiv8r wrote:

Forum admins only! DO NOT READ!!!

This is great, it deserves points.  Of course, it'll probably just make people want to read it more.    You could put this one above it, I was going to use it to protest moderator aggression, but I've given up and have decided to retire from that business.

[Gast]

Fr. Watson wrote:

Or post #4!

It has nothing to do with the number of posts, only the points earned in that forum ranked against others in the forum.  So if there is a forum where few points are awarded the top participants can be confusing as they may have  10 points and 3 posts.

[~graffiti]

curt y wrote:

Fr. Watson wrote:

Or post #4!

It has nothing to do with the number of posts, only the points earned in that forum ranked against others in the forum.  So if there is a forum where few points are awarded the top participants can be confusing as they may have  10 points and 3 posts.

Doesn't seem to work that way in the Acrobat forum. There's one prolific poster with a very low point count that shows as one of the top posters.

From the looks of it, it goes by quantity over quality.

[Jesseham]

I think you're right.  I think it's quantity.  Me and #3, Larry G. Schneider, are popping back and forth between 3rd and 4th.  I can get into 3rd with only posts, no points.

Excuse me while I go agree with every solution offered.

[~graffiti]

Jesseham wrote:

Excuse me while I go agree with every solution offered.

I agree.

[the_wine_snob]

So if there is a forum where few points are awarded the top participants can be confusing as they may have  10 points and 3 posts.

If it were only points, then some, who have only posted to a particular forum, but had many points, would be #1. It is not just the points, but the total posts, and also the posts to a particular forum. There are several criteria that are apparently factored in.

Hunt

[Gast]

all i know is that i was top participant in this forum, now i'm a nobody. my ego is bruised.

[Gast]

dave milbut wrote:

all i know is that i was top participant in this forum, now i'm a nobody. my ego is bruised.

Guess that means you comments are "pointless". 

[the_wine_snob]

Is it just based on post count or is there some secret Adobe judge, reading everyone's posts?

There is actually a super-computer in Langley, VA, USA, that crunches the numbers on each poster. Their rating is based on many factors: posts, points and how many Adobe products they have registered. Oh, and then there are the PM's to Adobe managment on how helpful these people have really been.

A few have been cited for bartering these elements, but that is frowned upon.

In all seriousness, it's based on a couple of aspects:

1.) posts to a particular forum

2.) posts to all fora

3.) points

As an example, I have more posts and more points than a respected contributor to a particular forum. However, he is rated above me for that forum. My posts are spread out over many fora, and his are mostly into that one forum. In that forum, I would not have it any other way, and would not expect it to be otherwise.

It is an amalgam of several factors. It is probably weighted, but I do not know what the factors are. Maybe one of the MOD's can address that.

Hunt

[Claudio González]

I don't know what are the basis for ranking the posters who make it to the list. In any case, I have just taken a look at it and notice the following:

1. It is called Top participants, but also includes some who haven't been promoted from users to participants.

2. It includes Ramón, who resigned and was then banned.

3. I made it to the list for the first time since the new forums were implemented!

[Gast]

Claudio González wrote:

1. It is called Top participants, but also includes some who haven't been promoted from users to participants.

Hah! That's just Jive's stupid UI designers smoking weed again. "Participant" is a posting "rank", whatever the heck that means.  It also just happens to be the word they used for that feature when they should have just named it "Top Users".  (Of course, "User" is a "rank" too...)

In other words "Top Participants" is inclusive of all people (lack of better term) here, not just people with the "Participant" rank (that the Jiveware designers came up with one day while smoking crack).

I think.