New User Rank System

[AgnesIO]

They look alright I guess, but why have Platinum members (what was emerald, e.g. 10,000 posts and up) lost features? Didn't they used to get to view who gave them rep?

I still don't see the point but anyway xD I am unsure if increasing the amount of groups to be made is worth it, it will jst clog up the groups.

Over all I guess it isn't awful, but I am still intrigued as to why it was changed :P

EDIT: U Tune for me. Not userbar's :l Please say they are still hidden when VIP?

[Ajthedragon]

I liked to old one. But meh. Everything changes. :P

[Tintinnabulate]

All users can now create 5 groups

What a terrible idea. You might get clone accounts creating groups etc now :S or a new member creating 5 for the sake of it. Limit it as its better as they should earn this feature.
Should limit it to atleast Ruby Members+ as 1,000 post isn't that hard to get.

[hah]

What a terrible idea. You might get clone accounts creating groups etc now :S or a new member creating 5 for the sake of it. Limit it as its better as they should earn this feature.
Should limit it to atleast Ruby Members+ as 1,000 post isn't that hard to get.


Clone accounts are not allowed, would have thought you'd of known that.
Pointless groups can also be reported :)

[Tintinnabulate]

Clone accounts are not allowed, would have thought you'd of known that.
Pointless groups can also be reported :)

It isnt allowed, well done :rolleyes:
But I can still make a clone account using a different IP and make a group I wanted to make and no one will know its me as there is no way of proving it. And like I said, new users shouldn't be allowed to make it. This feature should be earned.

[hah]

I pointed out what you didnt, i dunno why your giving me rolleyes, *Removed* Im not about to turn a positive thread into a negative thread like you do all the time, kinda explains why you have atleast a post a day in report rep. :)

But i still dont think there should be a limit on groups, i think everyone should be allowed make them but they should be approved by an admin or smod, because there are some pretty pointless ones imo already. Dont really see why Colin the hxhd dog needs one and same with different staff departments, they have forums and separate usergroups for that


Edited by Catzsy (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not rude to others.

[Tintinnabulate]

I pointed out what you didnt, i dunno why your giving me rolleyes, *Removed* Im not about to turn a positive thread into a negative thread like you do all the time, kinda explains why you have atleast a post a day in report rep. :)

But i still dont think there should be a limit on groups, i think everyone should be allowed make them but they should be approved by an admin or smod, because there are some pretty pointless ones imo already. Dont really see why Colin the hxhd dog needs one and same with different staff departments, they have forums and separate usergroups for that

*REMOVED*

Edited by Garion (Assistant General Manager): Please do not be rude or cause arguments.

[hah]

*REMOVED*

*Removed*

Edited by Catzsy (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not post to cause arguments

[Tintinnabulate]

*REMOVED*

Edited by Garion (Assistant General Manager): Please do not be rude to other members, or attempt to cause arguments.

[immense]

What a terrible idea. You might get clone accounts creating groups etc now :S or a new member creating 5 for the sake of it. Limit it as its better as they should earn this feature.
Should limit it to atleast Ruby Members+ as 1,000 post isn't that hard to get.

why are people so against new members getting features. it's a step in the right direction. we need to stop excluding them. good changes.

[Tintinnabulate]

why are people so against new members getting features. it's a step in the right direction. we need to stop excluding them. good changes.

I am not. I am glad they have unlimited arcade so I didn't say anything about that. But things such as groups should have a limit. New members shouldn't instantly get all the features.

[immense]

I am not. I am glad they have unlimited arcade so I didn't say anything about that. But things such as groups should have a limit. New members shouldn't instantly get all the features.
it's like starting a new school and getting told you can't use the dinner hall until you've been there for a year, lol. i don't agree with hardly anything, i'd have same avs, same everything, i'd let everyone see who repped them etc and think of completely new features for older members. REVOLUTION. nah, i know that's just me, my communism shining through here at habboxforum.com

[xxMATTGxx]

So this had turned into a negative thread already, oh jesus. Serious guys, making newer users able to play the arcade and create groups is a good thing. The groups feature did not kick off that well as we first thought and with more people able to create 5 groups each, we hope it is used more.

If any clone accounts or any groups are breaking the rules for whatever reasons, then they will be dealt with.

[immense]

to be fair, i think it's only resident MOANERS dom and sausau being negative. me and graham (more important) think the changes are fab.

[Tintinnabulate]

it's like starting a new school and getting told you can't use the dinner hall until you've been there for a year, lol. i don't agree with hardly anything, i'd have same avs, same everything, i'd let everyone see who repped them etc and think of completely new features for older members. REVOLUTION. nah, i know that's just me, my communism shining through here at habboxforum.com

Yeah but you say have same everything and then say new features for older members :P


So this had turned into a negative thread already, oh jesus. Serious guys, making newer users able to play the arcade and create groups is a good thing. The groups feature did not kick off that well as we first thought and with more people able to create 5 groups each, we hope it is used more.

If any clone accounts or any groups are breaking the rules for whatever reasons, then they will be dealt with.

Yeah because you needed very high post count to be able to make groups before. I don't think 1,000 post is hard to get and would be a reasonable limit.

[W00TZEH]

People actually use/care about groups anyway?I thought they were pointless. Same goes for new user rank system, it won't affect me anytime soon so mehhhhh

[Blinger$]

Yeah but you say have same everything and then say new features for older members :P



Yeah because you needed very high post count to be able to make groups before. I don't think 1,000 post is hard to get and would be a reasonable limit.
it is hard to get if you don't spam your way to it. i've been here 5 years, and if you don't use the WHAT DID U DO 30 SECONDS AGO, or WHAT DID U LAST THINK OF EATING/DRINKIN' threads it is hard.

[22andy2231]

its pretty cool. . the only thing i dont like is that it takes for ages to get to the next level lol and starts at gold i prefered if it started with bronze and then silver. . .so you dont have to do much to get to the next level lol

[Tintinnabulate]

it is hard to get if you don't spam your way to it. i've been here 5 years, and if you don't use the WHAT DID U DO 30 SECONDS AGO, or WHAT DID U LAST THINK OF EATING/DRINKIN' threads it is hard.

With general posting, people can get it in about 6 months really. Oh well. I wouldn't give everyone permission to create it anyway.

[FlyingJesus]

People actually use/care about groups anyway?

Looking at them now (for the first time in weeks, which says something in itself) I'd say not really. The only "activity" seems to be people joining or requesting to join them, because there's only 1 post in the entire group system from yesterday (cba looking back before that) and that was bumping an old discussion. Personally I only wanted groups in the first place to make a KKK one to show who's actually in it and that's done, can't see much other use for it.

Based on that, Saurav I'm sure you'll manage to go on somehow if people do make lots more groups because of this change, it's not going to affect anything whatsoever.

With regards to the other changes, all looks good to me although I swear 10k+ members could view rep and had full sig pic size before.

[AgnesIO]

To samsta I have been fairly positive, I would appreciate it if anyone is looking for an argument to leave this thread. Please?

Anyway forums have always had better features for more posts because it is a sort of incentive to post. If we become too generous on features then vip in world cup and xmas terms would be a waste of time surely? Just my opinion :)

Anyway please don't fight guys, this is feedback not ask to get banned

[Tintinnabulate]

To samsta I have been fairly positive, I would appreciate it if anyone is looking for an argument to leave this thread. Please?

Anyway forums have always had better features for more posts because it is a sort of incentive to post. If we become too generous on features then vip in world cup and xmas terms would be a waste of time surely? Just my opinion :)

Anyway please don't fight guys, this is feedback not ask to get banned

I agree. If you go on some other big forums, you need certain number of posts to get some features. Like you said, its an incentive to post more, and will make the forum more active. Overall its beneficial for the forum. Like I said earlier, 1,000 posts only takes a few months to get.

[AgnesIO]

Exactly saurav. Virtually every forum has a user rank system, and those systems don't invole equal rights for all. .

Also in jakes case I think 1,000 posts is more like 10 days haha

[flatface]

If no one is using the feature in the first place whats the point in limiting who can use it by introducing a 1000+ post count criteria??? :S surely you want to give more people access to this feature in order to possibly make it more popular??

I think the changes are fine, but obviously you are going to get some who wish to pick at anything. Trial these changes and see how things turn out, but give it a chance...

[immense]

I agree with Josh, people like the chance to criticise. Lets deal with what we know, as users. The groups aren't widely used, Tom has pointed this out. By making these changes, maybe more people will use them, maybe people won't. Who cares? It's like the Government giving people free coal when they only use their coal fires twice a year. Not really beneficial but no harm is done (in this case it'd be govt. losing money but obv ya get me).

The changes are fine. I would go further. Management haven't. I can see why. This should please new members, they can now do more as well as older members who still have special benefits. If the rep per star thing happens then that'd be fabulous too as it benefits everyone. I think the changes are good and we should all thank lorren for initiating these changes with her original feedback thread :)

[Hecktix]

I agree with Josh, people like the chance to criticise. Lets deal with what we know, as users. The groups aren't widely used, Tom has pointed this out. By making these changes, maybe more people will use them, maybe people won't. Who cares? It's like the Government giving people free coal when they only use their coal fires twice a year. Not really beneficial but no harm is done (in this case it'd be govt. losing money but obv ya get me).

The changes are fine. I would go further. Management haven't. I can see why. This should please new members, they can now do more as well as older members who still have special benefits. If the rep per star thing happens then that'd be fabulous too as it benefits everyone. I think the changes are good and we should all thank lorren for initiating these changes with her original feedback thread :)

What you are saying here is correct Jake, in all fairness we were quite disappointed when groups didn't really kick off too well and we realised the mistake immediately was that we made it too restrictive. I think as a member is only permitted to make 5 groups in their whole time as a member, it's a good to let them start this as a new member, however if groups are successful following this it would be an idea to increase the amounts people can make as they go up the ranks.

The aim when creating this new system was to give everybody more - which is what we have done, every single rank has now got more privilidges than before. I noticed a couple of people said that before 10,000posts + got to see who repped them, we decided to remove this and replace it with Invisible Mode which they didn't have before simply to save one of the "better" privelidges for VIP - as that was a problem we found here, there are only so many privelidges that we can use but everybody here has had at least one privelidge increased, infact all groups have seen an increase to avatar sizes (apart from Habbox God) as the 10k+ members could only have 140x140 before.

The rep-per-star thing is proving more difficult than we thought, James was working on it last night and it's quite complex however it's looking promising and could be coming in the next few weeks.

I also whole heartedly agree that Lorren's effort in feedback was tremendous and she should be applauded for planting the seeds which have grown into these changes - with more possibly to come.

[DieselShaq]

What you are saying here is correct Jake, in all fairness we were quite disappointed when groups didn't really kick off too well and we realised the mistake immediately was that we made it too restrictive. I think as a member is only permitted to make 5 groups in their whole time as a member, it's a good to let them start this as a new member, however if groups are successful following this it would be an idea to increase the amounts people can make as they go up the ranks.

The aim when creating this new system was to give everybody more - which is what we have done, every single rank has now got more privilidges than before. I noticed a couple of people said that before 10,000posts + got to see who repped them, we decided to remove this and replace it with Invisible Mode which they didn't have before simply to save one of the "better" privelidges for VIP - as that was a problem we found here, there are only so many privelidges that we can use but everybody here has had at least one privelidge increased, infact all groups have seen an increase to avatar sizes (apart from Habbox God) as the 10k+ members could only have 140x140 before.

The rep-per-star thing is proving more difficult than we thought, James was working on it last night and it's quite complex however it's looking promising and could be coming in the next few weeks.

I also whole heartedly agree that Lorren's effort in feedback was tremendous and she should be applauded for planting the seeds which have grown into these changes - with more possibly to come.
:O The numbers I suggested didn't work out for the rep-per-star?

[Hecktix]

:O The numbers I suggested didn't work out for the rep-per-star?

We haven't introduced rep-for-star yet as we're unsure it can work technically :)

[DieselShaq]

We haven't introduced rep-for-star yet as we're unsure it can work technically :)
Ah, okay, but judging by the posts per rank it looks like my numbers won't help anyway because I suggested different numbers for posts. Let me know if I can help =)

[FlyingJesus]

I'd imagine that reps for a certain numbers of posts would have to be done manually, I'm not a technical expert by any stretch but I haven't seen any system automatically give rep for anything before. If that's the case, I can see it being a lot of work for not much gain - it'd be nice to have as a little extra reward, but little really is the key word there as giving too large an amount would be deemed unfairly in favour of spammers and so it doesn't seem like something that particularly needs doing if it can't be automated. Doing it manually would also require a full record of who's been given what reward for what achievement too in order to not have it abused, which would be even more work.

[Hecktix]

I'd imagine that reps for a certain numbers of posts would have to be done manually, I'm not a technical expert by any stretch but I haven't seen any system automatically give rep for anything before. If that's the case, I can see it being a lot of work for not much gain - it'd be nice to have as a little extra reward, but little really is the key word there as giving too large an amount would be deemed unfairly in favour of spammers and so it doesn't seem like something that particularly needs doing if it can't be automated. Doing it manually would also require a full record of who's been given what reward for what achievement too in order to not have it abused, which would be even more work.

We did have one system that actually worked, but then figured out that everytime the system gave out the rep, if you had over the required number of posts it'd give you the rep - even if you've had it before so we've had to get a bit more complex and start playing with more difficult things - Jamesy is confident he will find a way though.

[FlyingJesus]

tbh from the sounds of things the kid can do anything, so wouldn't put it past him I guess :P

[AaronOnlineKid]

It looks Cool :)

[Stephen]

it looks weird @ above 7 posts and gold

[Hecktix]

it looks weird @ above 7 posts and gold

It looks weird that what were higher ranks are now lower, I guess this is just something to get used to though, of course things look weird when they have just been changed.

[Tintinnabulate]

If no one is using the feature in the first place whats the point in limiting who can use it by introducing a 1000+ post count criteria??? :S surely you want to give more people access to this feature in order to possibly make it more popular??

I think the changes are fine, but obviously you are going to get some who wish to pick at anything. Trial these changes and see how things turn out, but give it a chance...

Not really. If I don't like something I say it. Out of so many changes over the last few weeks and months, this is the first I have critised. I don't "pick at anything". I have said how some of their decisions are great before so please stop presuming things.
The only reason groups failed is because you needed like 5k+ or something posts before creating them and not many current users had that high post count - not even the FM has it...

[hah]

was 2.5k

[Tintinnabulate]

was 2.5k

You are correct.

Ruby
To move to this usergroup you will need to have been registered for 90 days and have 2500 posts. For each extra star you need 500 posts.

Another problem with the system before was that you had to be registered for x days too, glad that's been scrapped.

[Black_Apalachi]

The only difference that has affected me is that I've essentially swapped seeing who repped me for invisibility, which I'm not exactly a fan of but still, I think the new system is beneficial for the forum overall.

[Tintinnabulate]

The only difference that has affected me is that I've essentially swapped seeing who repped me for invisibility, which I'm not exactly a fan of but still, I think the new system is beneficial for the forum overall.

Overall it is yep. The larger avatars is definitely good.

[flatface]

Not really. If I don't like something I say it. Out of so many changes over the last few weeks and months, this is the first I have critised. I don't "pick at anything". I have said how some of their decisions are great before so please stop presuming things.
The only reason groups failed is because you needed like 5k+ or something posts before creating them and not many current users had that high post count - not even the FM has it...

never mentioned your name, anyway I dont really care about your life story so yep.

Just sayin' that I think your 1k post idea is a bad one! :)

[Tintinnabulate]

never mentioned your name, anyway I dont really care about your life story so yep.

Just sayin' that I think your 1k post idea is a bad one! :)

Thats fine :). It was just a suggestion anyway. We all have different opinions.

[The Professor]

its pretty cool. . the only thing i dont like is that it takes for ages to get to the next level lol and starts at gold i prefered if it started with bronze and then silver. . .so you dont have to do much to get to the next level lol

This is actually quite a good point, I'm surprised no-one picked up on it. The gap between the first group and the next one up is 1000 posts which is a humongous amount! I've been using the forum quite regularly since 2004 and only have 7000 ish, 1000 will take at least 6 months for a normal user. That's farrr too long to wait for a new group, the vast majority of people (as shown frequently by our woeful useage stats) will get bored and leave by then. +rep to that post :)

[Nixt]

I think it's great. Given that the group system was frankly not used at all after it's launch, why should we reserve it as a 'benefit' when it's not really a benefit at all, but a bit of fun that we may as well open to all members.

[Tintinnabulate]

This is actually quite a good point, I'm surprised no-one picked up on it. The gap between the first group and the next one up is 1000 posts which is a humongous amount! I've been using the forum quite regularly since 2004 and only have 7000 ish, 1000 will take at least 6 months for a normal user. That's farrr too long to wait for a new group, the vast majority of people (as shown frequently by our woeful useage stats) will get bored and leave by then. +rep to that post :)

Bronze and Silver were scrapped as they don't look and sound as good I think.

[The Professor]

Bronze and Silver were scrapped as they don't look and sound as good I think.

Yeah I'm not mourning the loss of them by name, just that the gap between the lowest group and the next one up is mental.

[AgnesIO]

Bronze and Silver were scrapped as they don't look and sound as good I think.

Which imo is a lame reason but still haha.

---

I am not sure hy I are about any of this stuff anyway if I am being honest. I have VIP until May 2011 anyway :P And will buy some more when world cup vip comes out :L

[The Professor]

Which imo is a lame reason but still haha.

---

I am not sure hy I are about any of this stuff anyway if I am being honest. I have VIP until May 2011 anyway :P And will buy some more when world cup vip comes out :L

Maybe because having an effective rewards system is a good way of retaining members? :)

On that note, the groups thing is really badly implemented. It hasn't taken off because it's hidden in some deep menus so no bugger can find them. If you want a feature to be successful you need to push it; put a groups updates thing on the homepage thing (maybe something saying "Jim has joined the Group For Frogs") like FB does. There's no point giving everyone access to them if you're not going to promote it properly.

[AgnesIO]

Tbh I have no idea where to fid groups (apart from typing in /groups in the url bar.

--

And Alex I don't think changing he colour of stars is effective lol.

[hah]

you can find them in the community link up top

[The Professor]

Tbh I have no idea where to fid groups (apart from typing in /groups in the url bar.

--

And Alex I don't think changing he colour of stars is effective lol.

Which is why they shouldnt have been changed :P All they're doing is increasing the gap to the 2nd group up and butchering the stars with those horrible userbars. They need to give real standout features to each group to make it a real incentive, increasing the size of an avatar by 10 pixels doesn't really cut it imo! If Hx really want to solve their retention problem they need to think outside the box.

Yeah I'm not in a good mood :P

[AgnesIO]

Sadly Alex, they changed the groups so there are LESS incentives, since some idiots seem to think it is better for everyone to be equal, rather than for people to post :P

[immense]

Sadly Alex, they changed the groups so there are LESS incentives, since some idiots seem to think it is better for everyone to be equal, rather than for people to post :P

Just because you're on this forum and established, not everyone is. Your posts constantly moan and go on and on and on and on. We know elitism is a problem on Habbox and it's absolutely bizarre that you don't want people to be equal. Imagine in school like I said, you start a new school and you're told you can only use the coloured pens and not the paint like everyone else. Would you enjoy going? Being excluded? No. These changes are a step in the right direction. People quite simply DIDN'T post enough to go up the ranks, leading to a decrease in forum activity, leading to these changes. What you're proposing was tried in the last system which need I stress any further. Wasn't. Effective. Enough.

[Jamesy]

Maybe because having an effective rewards system is a good way of retaining members? :)

On that note, the groups thing is really badly implemented. It hasn't taken off because it's hidden in some deep menus so no bugger can find them. If you want a feature to be successful you need to push it; put a groups updates thing on the homepage thing (maybe something saying "Jim has joined the Group For Frogs") like FB does. There's no point giving everyone access to them if you're not going to promote it properly.

That's quite a good point and I have an idea I can give to General Management to consider. Incidentally I'm just running some final checks on the rep4posts system so watch this space, as oli says.

[Nixt]

Sadly Alex, they changed the groups so there are LESS incentives, since some idiots seem to think it is better for everyone to be equal, rather than for people to post :P

I guess those "idiots" have nothing to do with the increase in members online and posting then. I guess those "idiots" haven't worked incredibly hard to introduce as many new features as possible to ensure that the forum is a place people want to be. I guess those "idiots" are poor in terms of their management skills and you would prefer individuals who ignore majority member feedback and do what the hell they want, whether the forum benefits or not.

The user ranks remain ranks, they do not fail to provide incentives to post. We have tried our best to adequately combine an incentive to sign up and an incentive to post more with the ranks, and I really don't see the problem with them. They are, as has been said, a step in the right direction.

[Tintinnabulate]

Just because you're on this forum and established, not everyone is. Your posts constantly moan and go on and on and on and on. We know elitism is a problem on Habbox and it's absolutely bizarre that you don't want people to be equal. Imagine in school like I said, you start a new school and you're told you can only use the coloured pens and not the paint like everyone else. Would you enjoy going? Being excluded? No. These changes are a step in the right direction. People quite simply DIDN'T post enough to go up the ranks, leading to a decrease in forum activity, leading to these changes. What you're proposing was tried in the last system which need I stress any further. Wasn't. Effective. Enough.

We know what you are saying, but the same system was in place in 2004 and it worked? Obviously something else has changed too. Its good they have done unlimited arcade, but there needs to be something there for users to work towards.

[hah]

users dont like working towards things anymore, they arent 7. in todays world if most people dont get what they want straight away they give up.

[Tintinnabulate]

Obviously people didnt like the idea of having 1,000 posts before being allowed to create groups.

What about allowing them to create one group when they join, and being allowed to create an additional group (or something similar) as the go up the user rank ladder? That way they have an added incentive to post to be able to create another group.

[W00TZEH]

BEING ABLE TO CREATE A GROUP WILL NOT BE AN INCENTIVE FOR ANYONE

just putting that out there.

[Hecktix]

Obviously people didnt like the idea of having 1,000 posts before being allowed to create groups.

What about allowing them to create one group when they join, and being allowed to create an additional group (or something similar) as the go up the user rank ladder? That way they have an added incentive to post to be able to create another group.

I am considering staggering it, I said so earlier :P :)

[Tintinnabulate]

I am considering staggering it, I said so earlier :P :)

Ah sorry, I didn't see that.

[AgnesIO]

Just because you're on this forum and established, not everyone is. Your posts constantly moan and go on and on and on and on. We know elitism is a problem on Habbox and it's absolutely bizarre that you don't want people to be equal. Imagine in school like I said, you start a new school and you're told you can only use the coloured pens and not the paint like everyone else. Would you enjoy going? Being excluded? No. These changes are a step in the right direction. People quite simply DIDN'T post enough to go up the ranks, leading to a decrease in forum activity, leading to these changes. What you're proposing was tried in the last system which need I stress any further. Wasn't. Effective. Enough.

'Just because you have hardly any posts' that argument can go two ways mate..

I can't believe people are SERIOUSLY suggesting the ranks had to be changed because people didn't like going up them. Just time I checked Habbox has THOUSANDS of members who POST. And school has nothing to do with this. Forums virtually always have user's who are older with better features. Infact many forums have names like 'Noob', 'Newb', 'Grunt', 'Inexperienced' - so I think bronze was was fine.

[Nixt]

'Just because you have hardly any posts' that argument can go two ways mate..

I can't believe people are SERIOUSLY suggesting the ranks had to be changed because people didn't like going up them. Just time I checked Habbox has THOUSANDS of members who POST. And school has nothing to do with this. Forums virtually always have user's who are older with better features. Infact many forums have names like 'Noob', 'Newb', 'Grunt', 'Inexperienced' - so I think bronze was was fine.

You're talking about forums who have a massive member base where members are often older and not as young as 11. If I joined a forum at the age of 11 or 12, and even some older people who use Habbo and have a certain personality, I would be seriously put off by being called a newb or even categorised as Bronze.

[AgnesIO]

You're talking about forums who have a massive member base where members are often older and not as young as 11. If I joined a forum at the age of 11 or 12, and even some older people who use Habbo and have a certain personality, I would be seriously put off by being called a newb or even categorised as Bronze.

'Or even being categorised as Bronze.' How can you possibly say that? I think 49,000 of the 'active' members joined this forum a few months ago at the very earliest, when they were 11 years olds, and guess what LOADS of those still post. This whole crap about how users should not have to be bronze is ridiculous.

And just to point out with you Garion, 'some idiots' was not referring to management, so..

[hah]

yeah tbh i agree with adam
when i found out i needed more posts for a group it wasnt worth the effort

[AgnesIO]

yeah tbh i agree with adam
when i found out i needed more posts for a group it wasnt worth the effort

But then, just like I said at the time, groups were the worst idea ever lol

[immense]

'Just because you have hardly any posts' that argument can go two ways mate..

I can't believe people are SERIOUSLY suggesting the ranks had to be changed because people didn't like going up them. Just time I checked Habbox has THOUSANDS of members who POST. And school has nothing to do with this. Forums virtually always have user's who are older with better features. Infact many forums have names like 'Noob', 'Newb', 'Grunt', 'Inexperienced' - so I think bronze was was fine.

They don't though, that's the issue. The forum is no longer the most active. Also, about my posts I had 18.5K on Immenseman *REMOVED* and I still wanted every user to be equal then. I got 1k posts in like a week, I could overtake you with ease. So I suggest you look a little bit deeper before you make another ludicrous reply and have the egg firmly back on your face.

'
And just to point out with you Garion, 'some idiots' was not referring to management, so..

Well seeing as they implemented it... :rolleyes:

Jesus...

Edited by Nicola (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude to others

[hah]

he thinks he is a descendant of immenseman LOL, and i never see dom suggesting anything to make the forum better only complaining

[immense]

he thinks he is a descendant of immenseman LOL, and i never see dom suggesting anything to make the forum better only complaining

LMAOOO best line on the forum 2k10. he is actually like me :-l the way he goes on and on moaning. god. glad i grew out of that :l

[dbgtz]

yeah im sure i should be a sapphire member yet i only have a max of 300 in my pm storage

[AgnesIO]

They don't though, that's the issue. The forum is no longer the most active. Also, about my posts I had 18.5K on Immenseman you moron and I still wanted every user to be equal then. I got 1k posts in like a week, I could overtake you with ease. So I suggest you look a little bit deeper before you make another ludicrous reply and have the egg firmly back on your face.


Well seeing as they implemented it... :rolleyes:

Jesus...

That's the point. I 'had' 18.5k posts on Immenseman. 'had'


he thinks he is a descendant of immenseman LOL, and i never see dom suggesting anything to make the forum better only complaining

Last time I checked I often post ideas, many which are implemented xx Out of all the things you can say about me, I think saying I never suggest anything is the worst comment you can come up with.

[Hecktix]

Handbags away ladies.

I think overall this changes are beneficial, obviously some users will never be happy even if management get on the tables and do a tap dance naked, but I'm glad we are fulfilling the wishes of a large majority of members :)

[hah]

could you link me to some?

[The Professor]

The user ranks remain ranks, they do not fail to provide incentives to post. We have tried our best to adequately combine an incentive to sign up and an incentive to post more with the ranks, and I really don't see the problem with them. They are, as has been said, a step in the right direction.

So you think 1000 posts is a suitable point for members to be rewarded for being here? I don't know if I can do it with the search tools available to me but I'd love to know the number of members who've joined in the last 6 months who've amassed 1000 posts. I'm willing to wager its at, or close to, 0.

Btw I'm not against giving members features as soon as they join, that's all fine and cool. Just the criteria to get to the 2nd lowest rank.

[immense]

That's the point. I 'had' 18.5k posts on Immenseman. 'had'



Last time I checked I often post ideas, many which are implemented xx Out of all the things you can say about me, I think saying I never suggest anything is the worst comment you can come up with.
If I cared about that ban like you are insinuating I would have appealed. Post count, reputation, join date doesn't turn me on unlike some. The fact I had 1 infraction point when I was permed would suggest the perm was unfair. However, I agreed with managements decision I needed a new start. If I ever appeal it, it'll be more along the lines that I have changed and would like my old account back rather than it's unfair. You're deluded. Once again, even after instructed you failed to get anything right. Embarrassing really.

Handbags away ladies.

I think overall this changes are beneficial, obviously some users will never be happy even if management get on the tables and do a tap dance naked, but I'm glad we are fulfilling the wishes of a large majority of members :)
Yeah, don't worry, you're always going to get the idiots ;)

[FlyingJesus]

I think 49,000 of the 'active' members joined this forum a few months ago at the very earliest, when they were 11 years olds, and guess what LOADS of those still post.

Is that the truth? I challenge you to name 5 people who joined this month and are as active as some of the older members. I certainly don't see any in here.


So you think 1000 posts is a suitable point for members to be rewarded for being here? I don't know if I can do it with the search tools available to me but I'd love to know the number of members who've joined in the last 6 months who've amassed 1000 posts. I'm willing to wager its at, or close to, 0.

Btw I'm not against giving members features as soon as they join, that's all fine and cool. Just the criteria to get to the 2nd lowest rank.

I agree somewhat, things have changed a fair bit since I looked into it but last time I did there were I believe something like 4 new members who'd made more than 10 posts in their first month. Not entirely sure of the stats and someone can look it up if they want but if people are only willing to stick around for a few posts then maybe the 1st gap ought to be closed a little - that is, assuming new users actually care about any of this. I state again that I see none here.

[The Professor]

I agree somewhat, things have changed a fair bit since I looked into it but last time I did there were I believe something like 4 new members who'd made more than 10 posts in their first month. Not entirely sure of the stats and someone can look it up if they want but if people are only willing to stick around for a few posts then maybe the 1st gap ought to be closed a little - that is, assuming new users actually care about any of this. I state again that I see none here.

Well that's a different argument altogether, like I said earlier management don't seem to be thinking outside the box. New members won't be bothered about a 10 pixel increase in avatar size or the ability to make groups when the groups system itself is hidden away and unused.

[Nixt]

Well that's a different argument altogether, like I said earlier management don't seem to be thinking outside the box. New members won't be bothered about a 10 pixel increase in avatar size or the ability to make groups when the groups system itself is hidden away and unused.

You can criticise but you fail to think outside the box yourself and give us suggestions. This is only the beginning of some of our changes and more will be coming soon. Whilst a member might not think "omg yes 10 more pixels" it may reduce the amount of members being PM'd for having oversized avatars which in itself is beneficial.

[The Professor]

You can criticise but you fail to think outside the box yourself and give us suggestions. This is only the beginning of some of our changes and more will be coming soon. Whilst a member might not think "omg yes 10 more pixels" it may reduce the amount of members being PM'd for having oversized avatars which in itself is beneficial.

In this thread I've made two suggestions: massively decreasing the amount of posts needed between the lowest and 2nd lowest group to reward new members more in their early days here and to better promote the group system with a facebook style "bob liked Gay Pride UK" box on the home page, and also not burying the system in menus. What do you want me to do, write an essay?

I really don't see how giving more staggered avatar sizes is going to decrease the amount of PMs you need to send about oversized avatars. If people have an avatar over the allowed size its because they don't know about the rule, not because of the exact number in their rank down to the nearest 10 pixels.

[AgnesIO]

Handbags away ladies.

I think overall this changes are beneficial, obviously some users will never be happy even if management get on the tables and do a tap dance naked, but I'm glad we are fulfilling the wishes of a large majority of members :)


could you link me to some?

Well that post approval system that worked well for some time (I know it's a captcha now) was me idea originally xx Then a lot of rare values stuff was originally my idea, I think even the member of uppr management who I don't get long with, could agree I posted moreideas (manyf which are used) that others xx


Is that the truth? I challenge you to name 5 people who joined this month and are as active as some of the older members. I certainly don't see any in here.



I agree somewhat, things have changed a fair bit since I looked into it but last time I did there were I believe something like 4 new members who'd made more than 10 posts in their first month. Not entirely sure of the stats and someone can look it up if they want but if people are only willing to stick around for a few posts then maybe the 1st gap ought to be closed a little - that is, assuming new users actually care about any of this. I state again that I see none here.

Give me 10 mins to have a look.

EDIT: Got them:

AaronOnlineKid (something like that)
Erotica
-Brandon
JeffDunham-1
Ploomp
Plerms/Plurms

That's 6, and I only went 4 pages through, since I cba looking further. They all have like 15 odd posts, and Erotica has like 140 lol

[immense]

lmao even doing xs now, mini me

o/t love new system

[AgnesIO]

lmao even doing xs now, mini me

o/t love new system

Done the x thing for ages now, nice way of being sarcastic other than '/sarcasm' I think I started because someone kept doing it to me, so retaliation lol.

[Black_Apalachi]

Handbags away ladies.

I think overall this changes are beneficial, obviously some users will never be happy even if management get on the tables and do a tap dance naked, but I'm glad we are fulfilling the wishes of a large majority of members :)

You would need tap shoes so you wouldn't be naked waheeyy :P

If the main objective has been to give brand new members more incentive to get involved, then altering the rank system was a very important alteration to make. I notice new members now and again but rarely see any develop into regular visitors. This should do well to change that and help Habbox get back to being as active as it once was.

[Nixt]

In this thread I've made two suggestions: massively decreasing the amount of posts needed between the lowest and 2nd lowest group to reward new members more in their early days here and to better promote the group system with a facebook style "bob liked Gay Pride UK" box on the home page, and also not burying the system in menus. What do you want me to do, write an essay?

I really don't see how giving more staggered avatar sizes is going to decrease the amount of PMs you need to send about oversized avatars. If people have an avatar over the allowed size its because they don't know about the rule, not because of the exact number in their rank down to the nearest 10 pixels.

We've increased the amount of features available for members on immediate sign up and compensated with increasing the amount needed for members to advance to the next level. I think it's a fair compromise that works, too.

In increasing the avatar size we've changed it from being awfully small to a decent kind of size that which will mean less PMs are sent because you do find numerous PMs are sent as a result of being just a few pixels out. Not only that but the size is more preferable so even if they do get PM'd, or already know the limits, the size is no longer off putting. I am not going to say that members are going to sign up simply because the size of avatars have increased, but when they do sign up it may be a little less off putting when you realise you're allowed an avatar that can actually be seen.

We're taking steps to increase advertisement of the group system. I'm not asking you to write an essay but saying management need to "think outside the box" and then suggesting something like decreasing the amount of posts required to meet the next rank doesn't really tally in my book.

[FlyingJesus]

AaronOnlineKid (something like that) - has 11 posts as of now. I would not call that overly active.
Erotica - a fair point, I'll give you this one.
-Brandon - 14 posts.
JeffDunham-1 - looks like he might well be on the way to properly active so you can have this one too.
Ploomp - old member returning, also established elsewhere
Plerms/Plurms - 17 posts.

That and the fact that you had to go through 4 pages just to find this extremely small number of potentially active new members says to me that you fail the challenge and were either misinformed or simply lying when you said that "LOADS" of new members were still posting.

[AgnesIO]

That and the fact that you had to go through 4 pages just to find this extremely small number of potentially active new members says to me that you fail the challenge and were either misinformed or simply lying when you said that "LOADS" of new members were still posting.

I didn't count users with like 3 posts (no matter when they joined). Also that will ALWAYS whatever you try be the case. People sign up to this forum because it is the most well known but 90% probably won't post, but that is the same on ANY forum.

[FlyingJesus]

That was kinda the point, but I don't count 2 or 3 people as loads no matter what the proportions are.

[AgnesIO]

That was kinda the point, but I don't count 2 or 3 people as loads no matter what the proportions are.

A fair amount had 3 or so posts. And you asked for 5 people. Didn't you?