Ideas for new member rank scheme

[albummaster]

On another thread, I mentioned I was toying with the idea of changing the current ranking system to be based on the figures on the top members page instead of basing them on post count.

Currently, we have (minimum post count):

[New user] (0)
Silver (5)
Gold (10)
Platinum (30)
Diamond (50)
Famous (100)
Superstar (250)
Legend (500)

A points system will allow members that do not contribute on the forums, but otherwise are active elsewhere on the site, to take advantage of any new features should BEA decide to provide different tiers of functionality in the future.

At the moment, I don't think it's fair that a non-english speaker (for example) should not be entitled to use these features just because their native language stops them posting on the forums, or perhaps people just don't want to post here but still would like to contribute in other ways on the rest of the site.

Without setting this in stone at the moment, I'm thinking along the lines of 500 points will provide top-tier functionality. I think that covers pretty much all 'superstar' and 'legend' people on the forums, and probably most 'famous' people too. I think the points system on the top-members page provides a pretty decent insight into people's level of activity.

I'd also like to re-label the different ranks and get some new graphics to tidy this area of the site up a bit.

I'm not sure what people think, but it just feels like a good time to do this, especially if the underlying thresholds change. I don't want to have people feel they have been 'demoted' etc, just because the underlying numbers are different, so maybe rebadging everything will stop this from happening.

Perhaps there could be more 'ranks' than there are now, or less, I'm not sure what people feel? Maybe we could have a vote on some new labels as well? (if people have any suggestions).

If this was based on points, perhaps:

(EDIT: the following has been edited to include some new ideas)

Standard members:
[New user] 0 (Greatest Album Chart: 40 entries) - 'new' albums/bands capped at 10 entries with 7 days (protects moderation system from flooding by new users)
Level 1: 10 (Unlocks: Ability to post links on forum)
Level 2: 250 (Unlocks: Greatest Album Chart: 50 entries) - 'new' albums/bands capped at 20 entries within 7 days (protects moderation system from flooding by new users)

------------ from here, users get access to 'premium' features --------
Level 3: 500 (Unlocks: Greatest Album Chart of 100 entries) - 'new' albums/bands cap lifted
Level 4: 1000 (Unlocks: Decade charts - when released)
Level 5: 2500 (Unlocks: Year charts - when released)
Level 6: 5000 (Unlocks: Name your own rank)

and then...
Level 7: 10000 Reserved for future use
Level 8: 25000 Reserved for future use
Level 9: 50000 Reserved for future use

(N.B. Points thresholds are draft and still need to be decided.)

Premium members:
Access to all above (and future) features (except name your own rank), plus no banner ads

(7 levels is the same as the current system; but it's probably a good idea if the number of levels in the new system is different, so that the old and new systems aren't easily comparable.)

[Xavygravy]

Here are some ideas for what should be unlocked at each level, aside from new rank names/icons:
Level 0 - overall chart only, 25 maximum
Level 1 - able to post links on the forum; other minor things that prevent spam
Level 2 - overall chart expands to 50
Level 3 - overall chart expands to 75
Level 4 - overall chart expands to 100
Level 5 - access to Decade charts
Level 6 - access to Yearly charts
Level 7+ - bragging rights, or some fancy-cool features in the future

Of course, cooler (music-relevant) names should be made for each level.

As for the amount of member rank levels, I think more than 7 should be made to satisfy the seriously active members of the site. I think additional ones requiring 10,000 15,000 20,000 and 30,000 would do the job (or, if it requires little additional effort, 40,000 and 50,000 as well). They may seem like ridiculously large numbers, but you'd be surprised at how many people work towards it just because the incentive is there. Just look at Call of Duty prestiges or Halo Reach ranks, and how many people have gotten to the maximum rank just because it's there.

Perhaps at around Level 10, members can self-name their levels. Cool reputation features like that. GARY could title himself Demigod as he keeps mentioning.

[GARY]

[albummaster]

[GARY]

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

_________________
.
I owe $100,000 and wasted 4 years of my life.

And all I got was this silly hat



.

[albummaster]

might be a little large and what comes after demi-God? Need to do some thinking...

[Kiki]

I'm uncertain about starting at 50 and then earning your way to 100.

I think putting it as low as 25 be a bad idea though. I would only do that as a way to prevent something rather than an incentive to make more posts

[albummaster]

Maybe 50 is a good starting point then. After all, we did that for a long time until very recently.

At the moment, I'm just gauging people's feedback with a view, at some point, to creating a tiered membership which will then (hopefully) guarantee the site's future into 2012 and beyond.

I've mentioned before, this site generates hardly any cash and the hosting fees alone are not cheap. This site uses multiple servers and a lot of processing power due to the volume of data (over one hundred million records) and the amount of computations that are going on in the background to calculate the rankings, send out emails, etc is vast. Not only that, the hosting fees are only going to increase now that we have bigger charts and more users (and with the prospect of multiple charts not so far away).

I have explored pretty much every option now to keep this site alive and this is kind of a last-chance saloon for BEA. You can probably tell I am on here pretty much full time these days, but I simply can't afford to sustain doing this for much longer. I am not able to do paid work outside of this site as it takes too much time up, and since this site doesn't earn nearly enough money to live on (even modestly), at some point I would have to let the site go, either when my savings are depleted , or I decide to give up

I've been prepared to take a risk with this site and work on it full time because I think there is something good starting to happen here and there is still lots of potential to do better. I also enjoy working on the site, and only wish I could work faster sometimes!

I think by creating some kind of tiered membership and offering premium functionality not available to free members (unless they reach a certain rank), it might provide a small income stream which will allow this site to keep running. The advertising revenue does not generate much cash, and even with more visitors, it will be unlikely to grow very much.

[Wombi]

Have you put in a 'donations' button? (not saying I'd give heh-heh.) But there might be some generous cashed-up users

[Hayden]