I'm always open to suggestions about how to redo this.
I just changed those two slightly to be more understandable.
Those things can be based on posts, on trophy points (which are, in turn, based on other things), or Likes. I've left it at the default, which is basing it on the number of posts. I cannot base it on any other things or any combination of those things, but I can set the levels and I can control the text that appears.
I presume the point is just so if a new person asks a question, they can generally see what answers come from more experienced members.
Is there any way to make these titles based on Likes received?
I'm considered "Experienced and Respected" and I don't even consider myself that haha. I've just been here for some time, that's all. If you make it based on likes, it could reflect what user generally posts more quality content.
If that's not the point and we don't even care about that, then I say like now it's fine.
Most forums have pos/neg values so you could tell very quickly what advice is most worthwhile, or what users seem more helpful. Doing these rankings based on Likes could be similar, without the negative aspect of negative points.
I'll chime in since if you look at the Members tab and "Most Likes" I seem to be at the top...
I think I'd rather see it kept at number of posts, because the "Most Likes" is heavily distorted by Training Log entries.
I suppose the same is true for number of posts... but anyway that's my 2 cents. Unless the number of posts and/or most likes can exclude Training Logs? (Steve?) In that case, they both would be more accurate IMO.
@Anna C: I completely disagree with you. I think Log likes are absolutely fair game.
If you're posting your training, and we see it, and we "like" it, that says a lot about your credibility. It means we know what you're up to,and think it's sensible.
The whole point of the little blur is to tell which opinions are generally most backed up with experience. I'll take advice from somebody who has a Log here, and has people constantly checking it (by way of Likes) over someone who does not have a Log and simply posts often.
Ultimately, a Like means someone saw what you wrote, and thought it made sense. I think that's exactly what those blurs should be saying. Regarding higher those who post often, and with good logic.
I think it doesn't really matter whether you take posts, likes or mix of boths (likes in relation to posts), because from my experience you would end up with the same thing.
Just go to the "Notable Members" section and compare the "Most Messages" and "Most Likes" list and you'll see that they are basically the same with a few exceptions.
And with the exception of Chief Pavel (the few likes must be, because his posts must be from a time when there wasn't a "like"-feature, i guess) you won't find someone who only has a lot of posts, but very few likes. All of them have a post/like-ratio of ~50% or more.
Also if you spend just a bit of time on the forum you'll find out for yourself whos advise/opinion/insight etc. is valuable to you and whos not. At least that's the case for me.
EDIT: One thing I would change though, and this could just be my personal feeling, but "Esteemed on the Forum" is a higher rank than "Experienced and Respected on the Forum".
I don't know about you, but I would value "experienced and respected" as "better"/higher than "esteemed"
Just having the numbers of posts and likes below the name instead of the title would also be a good idea IMO.
I assume most ofmy likes come from 'funny thoughts' I have posted and less from advice (although there might be some ). Not sure if the likes would be a good point for orientation.
There could be a section like "what I am up to" where you post your training preferences, history of injury, nutrition, coaches you like, philosophy...sth you get an overview from and then can decide who you might ask/take a closer look at?! A bit more info than the one given when you click the memeber's name.
@Kettlebelephant : It does make a difference. If you're just looking at the extremes, it's hard to see (obviously the person with most post is most likely to have the most likes, and those with zero posts have zero likes).
But if you consider the majority (the middle pack) it's perfectly possible for two users to have the same amount of posts (say 500), but radically different Like amounts. Judging by Likes makes that distinction when Post number wouldn't.
I agree about the part of "spending time in the forum" 100%. But it could have utility for those who don't spend as much time on SF.