Here's what Bob had to say after he'd done it:
"There was no way to just turn 'em off, that I could find. I hesitated to delete the group without doing some research... so first I set all the upper groups to require 10,000 posts, which made everyone a Newbie, so I just blanked out the text and stars and all. Seems to work. Admins got reduced to 3 stars."
At least I think that's what he did. I wanted them to go away because as I said, they didn't represent much of anything that any of us knew about, and sometimes they were intimidating to new folks here on the Forum. That is -- what do I have to do to get a few starts like you folks do, and what privileges do I get when I've got some?
So now if you've got stars it's because you're an administrator with all of the rights and privileges thereto appertaining. Recognise that phrase?
Is there data that shows that new folks are actually intimidated? Or is it more anecdotal? In either case, what is the point of
any status that is visible?
Why yes, I do recognize the phrase.
Its been sometime, however I remember the status had a purpose. At that time If a person was new to the site, we wanted to limit what they could do until they were a proven entity. So instead of a person signing up and posting 50 pictures of naked ladies, or dudes (for Noonan) they had to establish themselves. Once they reached a new status to got more privileges like attached documents, uploading photos etc.
Of course that was my strategy back when I started the forum in 2004?
Jon
Seems sensible.
I'm wondering whether new folks are 'intimidated', or just do not have anything to say or post. I think most new folks and guests are surfing for information,
presumably from the more experienced members of the forum.
Wouldn't the simplified solution be to let users (whether newbies or
whatever) judge for themselves whether the posting person has anything of value to say?
Just my 2 cents worth, and I'm not sure it's worth that . . . . . .
Fordboy