Forum:Ranking System

Ranking system
I've seen some people say that we should get another ranking system to replace the one we threw out a while ago. I am thus taking the initiative and starting the discussion on it.

So, if we could devise a good ranking system that would only be used for the fun of it and encourage editing in the process, would you be for it?

An idea of mine, since we have to start somewhere, is just basing a lot of it off of that you only get promoted from good editing, and bad editing (vandalism, spam, rudeness, edit whoring, etc.) would deter a promotion or warrant a demotion.

You would also not automatically be enrolled in the ranking system and would thus have to choose to be enrolled, and would be able to leave at any time.

To get promoted, you would either request a promotion which would thus be looked over by someone else (a member of a committee? An admin? One of the highest-ranked members?), or be offered a promotion which you could either accept or decline.

Would we put a limit on the highest attainable rank? I mean, having a General and multiple other officers out of a group of maybe fifteen users isn't very accurate when it would come to organization. We could just increase the highest attainable rank as the userbase grows.

Would we even try to keep it semi-authentic with rank organization? Having five users to a Sergeant would be hard with our relatively small userbase. Especially with something like 100 other soldiers to a single Captain, 800 to a Major, 20,000 to a Major General, and so on. I would expect the ratios to be much smaller if we tried to keep it relative. Maybe something like five soldiers to a Lieutenant. Or something. I don't know.

I guess I'm going a bit far off. Simply put, it would be intended to increase fun output without the possibility of it being abused.

Feeback, input, or other ideas? Discuss below. 20:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support It seems a lot better than the awards system someone posted about a while back since powers would only be given to admins and high-ranked people. As long as there's a good system behind it, I think it could work. WouldYouKindly 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - We write about the video games, not host the games or something. We should be able to call ourselves whatever we want. A ranking system would also take away from the way this wiki feels like Wikipedia: a quasi-encyclopedic source of info. 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Ranking systems in general are horrible ideas. All they do is encourage awful editors to make bad edits so that they can get a .jpg on their profile. Darkman 4 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Please make a ranking system! It would really help with getting contributers. 14:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - per Dark. All it encourages is edit whoring-- 15:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - When I was on the Halo wiki, users could "join" a faction (i.e. UNSC, Covenant, etc.) and they'd get promoted by the admins based on their edit count. Darkman already spelled out the problem with that. To me, the ranking system seemed kind of pointless; I made Sergeant and nothing seemed different from when I started. However, when I was in JROTC, we used a portal that also had a ranking system. That too was based on a post count, but you could only do 10 posts a day. The ranking system can be fun, yes, but do we really need it? I'd go along either way, but I'll let democracy decide.Chief z 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - It will encourage crappy editing that we don't need. --CallofDuty4 07:39, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Just in-case anyone doesn't know what the old ranking system looks like, I kept it on my Sandbox. I made a few changes and added a few ranks. It is obviously a flawed ranking system so I wouldn't recommend using it again, although I personally would like to see another one. 03:08, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Community wise, it will attract many more people and gather a roughly 25% in site traffic. This is based from observations made with Halopedia's implementing a point system. From personal knowledge, I can guarantee that it will attract edit whores and bad contributers however. I think that the community expansion will allow for more people to stop the edit whores, and at the same time will provide some of the best editors around. When people see how much edit whoring is frowned upon however, it usually stops a lot of potentially bad editors. So TL;DR support. Blade bane Sorry man, but you need 50 mainspace edits in order to vote. :/ Darkman 4 15:13, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If we had *cough* another admin *cough*, or more users with rollback privileges, then it might just be OK.

Support BOO! Ok, here's my 2 bits. A ranking system such as Halopedia? No. Simply, no. However, come on guys, we can think of something better than this. Here's one idea: a ranking system by personal award. Somehow, the admins give badges or something to users for exemplary achievements, or above and beyond the call of duty. ;) These awards could also be nominated/voted by non-admins - kinda like an advanced UOtM.  The admins would be able to follow these nominations, as that takes a bit off the admin task for this.  Over time this would become better and more efficient.  That is something I thought of in like 10 seconds, so surely we can get some creative ideas going.   Cheers,  15:23, September 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * I put up a badge system that was voted down. --Joem25 03:00, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support: If it is based on edit count then it will encourage people to make positive changes, but before someone increases in rank, their contributions should be checked to see if they are valid for rank increase (e.g someone could just change something then change it back constantly to increase their count).   Critchell   Talk 16:46, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral I'm going to adopt a "wait & see" additude on this. On one hand, it can have huge potential, but on the other, it can encourage edit whoring, like Rs said. Cpl. Wilding 16:51, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Neutral. I like creepydude's idea. I like the idea of rewards that could either be displayed as Userboxes or as pics in the format. --CallofDuty4 17:50, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Support I think a ranking system would be good to show what a good wiki editor is like, a person who puts down false information, vandalizes, and anything else that doesn't help this wiki should get a lower rank, and with that rank lower privileges. Because the rank can be intermingled with the group system giving people certain privileges with a rank.-Jamesfury 10:42, Sept 18, 2009

Support I feel that this system is evenly balanced, is seems to not give too many people too much power, and makes the game more encouraging to others. This will give editors (such as myself) to feel good about what they do, and will give our wiki a more sense of respect. It keeps things in order because our higher- ranking players can moniter the lower ranking players, so they don't do anything fishy. So overall, the ranking system is a good idea I support.-Bignicky9