bobwest 

Yes, it's clear and I think it's useful. A suggestion: at present, you give the total post numbers and the total thanks (in parentheses) for the "Top Posters," which I think makes sense. It might also make sense to include the total posts, not just the ratio, for the "Best Posters." Reason: somebody might have made one dynamite post that got a whole lot of thanks, giving him the highest ratio, but he didn't post much, which matters. I think you should show both, still with the order based on the ratio, since it is what differentiates the two groups of posters. Example: Best Posters Joe Trader with 8.0 thanks per post (1 post) Mike Trader with 3.0 thanks per post (1400 posts) Both have made good posts, but Mike Trader has contributed more, and is consistent over a span of time, which is shown this way. Probably most of the time the high-ratio posters will also be among the high-number-of-post guys, but not always, so putting both numbers in gives more information and is still easy to understand quickly. Bob.

I was thinking of implementing a minimum post count to qualify for "Best Posters" section. What do you think of that?

I am space constrained for adding more text, because some usernames can be long, some big threads have a lot of views, and every character counts in the header when the site width is scaled to minimum required.

Mike

Please forgive intermittent availability of making a new post. I am trying to work something out with the new URL expansion feature, I'm doing my best to minimize disruptions.

Mike

Big Mike 

I was thinking of implementing a minimum post count to qualify for "Best Posters" section. What do you think of that?

Good idea. Lets you avoid the drive-by poster problem.

But perhaps not an absolute number that is always the same for every thread. Maybe a percentage of either the total posts in the thread or of the posts of the high posters, something that is proportionate to the amount of posting that has gone on in the thread.

Quoting 

I am space constrained for adding more text, because some usernames can be long, some big threads have a lot of views, and every character counts in the header when the site width is scaled to minimum required.

You might have to live with it then.

You might drop a few characters by replacing "thanks per post" with "thanks/post", which gets you something, but might not be as clear.

Bob.

bobwest 

Good idea. Lets you avoid the drive-by poster problem. But perhaps not an absolute number that is always the same for every thread. Maybe a percentage of either the total posts in the thread or of the posts of the high posters, something that is proportionate to the amount of posting that has gone on in the thread.

What formula would you propose? Please take a few example threads into consideration:

Right now, the Best Posters section is entirely omitted unless there are 4 positions or more to display. This prevents it from displaying in threads with less than four unique posters, and then on top of that, there needs to be four unique posters that have received thanks. I think this is working as desired. But, because of this, you don't need to consider threads that are brand new into your formula.

Thread 1
Total thread posts: 10
Total thread thanks received: 5
Total unique posters/users receiving thanks: 4

Thread 2
Total thread posts: 20
Total thread thanks received: 50
Total unique posters/users receiving thanks: 10

Thread 3
Total thread posts: 40,000
Total thread thanks received: 100,000
Total unique posters/users receiving thanks: 500

Big Mike 

So guys, while I am messing with this new link expansion tool for posts --- please give me some feedback on the "Best Posters" section of the top of each thread. Do you find that information useful? It's easy to understand what the value represents? Mike

It's very clear, and the information is mildly interesting, but I'm not sure what value it has. It's not like your going to read the thread but only read posts by certain people.

Big Mike 

Right now, the Best Posters section is entirely omitted unless there are 4 positions or more to display. This prevents it from displaying in threads with less than four unique posters, and then on top of that, there needs to be four unique posters that have received thanks. I think this is working as desired. But, because of this, you don't need to consider threads that are brand new into your formula.

Probably this takes care of the issue and is simple. No sense in getting complicated if you don't need to.

Bob.

SMCJB 

It's very clear, and the information is mildly interesting, but I'm not sure what value it has. It's not like your going to read the thread but only read posts by certain people.

No, that isn't my goal.

My goal quite honestly is to stimulate good (ie: helpful/useful/thanked) content.

When someone sees a ranking, especially the group of members that are regular posters, I want them to pause and think for a moment that post quality does matter. We want to provoke a response after the post is made, in the way of a Thanks.

Let's say you are an active poster in a thread, but one of two scenarios occurs. Scenario 1) You aren't in the Best Posters -- my goal is to encourage you to post better content. Scenario 2) You are in the Best Posters, but you are just behind @bobwest (aren't we all???) and you really want to beat him, so you really hone your posting skills to whip out your ninja moves like @bobwest, and bring your AAA+ game.

So, now that I've made my goal clear, please give me feedback on what I could do to drive this point across more clearly in the space provided in the header.

I say this because @SMCJB you've not understood the purpose of the content, so what can I do to make it more obvious?

bobwest 

Probably this takes care of the issue and is simple. No sense in getting complicated if you don't need to. Bob.

OK, good

Mike

Hey guys,

I've made a change so that the reply window/editor is now 100% of the width of your screen. This gives you more room to work with instead of artificially limiting the width.

I realize that at the moment, the drag and drop attachments to the left is causing things to be off-center and a little annoying. I'm going to work on that, but it's surprisingly complicated, so since it's working -- I am going to make that a lower priority for the moment.

Feedback on this change?

Mike

Big Mike 

No, that isn't my goal. My goal quite honestly is to stimulate good (ie: helpful/useful/thanked) content. When someone sees a ranking, especially the group of members that are regular posters, I want them to pause and think for a moment that post quality does matter. We want to provoke a response after the post is made, in the way of a Thanks. Let's say you are an active poster in a thread, but one of two scenarios occurs. Scenario 1) You aren't in the Best Posters -- my goal is to encourage you to post better content. Scenario 2) You are in the Best Posters, but you are just behind @bobwest (aren't we all???) and you really want to beat him, so you really hone your posting skills to whip out your ninja moves like @bobwest, and bring your AAA+ game. So, now that I've made my goal clear, please give me feedback on what I could do to drive this point across more clearly in the space provided in the header. I say this because @SMCJB you've not understood the purpose of the content, so what can I do to make it more obvious?

I also forgot to state the obvious:

The Best Posters section is a reward for those who post the best content, a way to highlight them. I plan an expansion of this kind of thing for the new forum homepage I have in mind (for years now, but I'm on a roll lately). I really want to bring attention to certain things on the site, and this is one.

Mike