New User Rank System

[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

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?