In a recent posting, this one in fact
, mention was made of ranking on the site; the comments suggested there needs to be a fuller discussion of ranking and a possible change of policy. In particular it was suggeested that there are career rankers, who rise through the ranking by answering only 'simple questions' or who simply used the forums for asking questions.
A number of issues arise here;
Firstly, I think it was BobBarker who once said 'once a thread has been succinctly and accurately answered there is little merit in adding further contributions', this is very, very true. In fact unless there is a difference of opinion many threads do not warrant above one or two contributions.
It is for this reason that many do not get the opportunity of contributing as fully as they might wish, it is sometimes a matter of pot luck as to whether you are the first to spot a new thread and contribute in any meaningful way, not that I am suggesting that my contributions are outstandingly brilliant in any way.
Secondly, there appears some question as to the quality of some contributions in the case of those who apparently target so called 'simple questions'; IMHO all contributions are valuable and a question seen as simple by many will not be seen as simple to the person asking it and yet they are thought no less of for asking it.
Thirdly, the ranking system is based simply upon the total number of postings. But if we examine this we find that this figure is actually; No of questions asked (new threads) + No of contributions made (existing threads)
I believe that ranking is important and is useful to others in guaging a contributors experience, however I do recocnise the shortcomings of the current method of ranking.
My suggestion would be to show two figures; No of postings followed by (in brackets perhaps) no of contributions and then to base a members ranking on their total number of contributions.
Admittedly this would mean that some would lose their ranking status, and that may include me, but I don't think that is any real hardship or issue ands would not affect the reputation of the real Guru's.
Having now opened the debate, what do others think and is there ground swell of opinion that the current method of ranking should be changed?