Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 31 replies
  • Subscribers 615 subscribers
  • Views 3249 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Top Members ?

dougw

The Top Members "thing" seems to have changed or pretty much faded away despite an old description of what they are.

Less than half of the listed Top Members are currently active. There haven't been any new Top Members in a while.

I don't think there is a private Top Members group discussion area any more.

There aren't any Top Members activities or perks other than a personal blog space.

They do have a personal blog space, but this is very seldom used.

I don't mind the change or demise at all - just observing that the Top Member idea has faded.

Do you think the Top Member designation is at all useful?

Should the Top Member designation even exist and if so how should it be defined?

Are there some currently active members who should become Top Members? 

Parents

  • I always saw the "top member" distinction as something to strive for. But I think. It makes less sense the less active users there are.

    Now, I don't exactly know how top members are picked, but if the process of picking them is not continuously run, or evaluated, or adjusted to what the community current state is, then you get what's essentially a picture of the past.

    On one hand, it's great to see who have historically contributed a lot to this wonderful place. On the other, if none (or almost none) of them are active or posting anymore, then the list is more of a historical record than a snapshot. Ironically part of the definition of being a top member is being active, so you'd expect to see the top members around a lot. But I don't think that's true anymore.

Reply

  • I always saw the "top member" distinction as something to strive for. But I think. It makes less sense the less active users there are.

    Now, I don't exactly know how top members are picked, but if the process of picking them is not continuously run, or evaluated, or adjusted to what the community current state is, then you get what's essentially a picture of the past.

    On one hand, it's great to see who have historically contributed a lot to this wonderful place. On the other, if none (or almost none) of them are active or posting anymore, then the list is more of a historical record than a snapshot. Ironically part of the definition of being a top member is being active, so you'd expect to see the top members around a lot. But I don't think that's true anymore.

Children
  • in reply to battlecoder

    It is unfortunately sometimes not very obvious (often for good reasons) but I think its an essential role, because it helps with some of the running of the site. we are not actually supposed to talk about it. Some of it is on the face of it probably boring to most, but actually really interesting to those passionate about having the best engineering community site ever.

    Regarding becoming a member,  I dont think it needs much more than providing a positive role. and being consistent. Its good that the process might take years to be a TM (if thats desired; not everyone probably accepts). There have been cases (I feel anyway) where people were too trigger-happy to on-board new TMs that either disappeared or didn't have a team spirit or worse, and from my perspective I like the longer considered approach to really prove consistency. Plus it feels like a good achievement so a win-win for all (hopefully!).

    I think its fair to say 99% of TMs (at least the active ones) will always be trying to improve things for all, probably being a thorn in the side of    (hopefully rarely! : ) since he is just as passionate) even if its boring stuff like spam discussions etc., even if its not visible.