My BPL ranking was 3.96 -- until my BPL subscription ran out yesterday. Today, it's 0.61.

So, 85% of the ranking is the annual BPL subscription all by itself! Pretty silly...

Edited by ben2world on 12/18/2007 11:27:28 MST.

Your no longer one of the cool kids. Sorry Ben.

Hehheh!

Are you gonna get dumped from being a peer reviewer if you are not a paying member?

If you would like to participate in peer review, you must:
1. Be an active BackpackingLight.com Premium Member;
2. Regularly read published content at BackpackingLight.com and/or Backpacking Light Magazine (print version);
3. Maintain interest in lightweight backpacking trends and information;
4. Have an awareness of information published by others on the topic of wilderness backpacking.


Ben typed,
"My BPL ranking was 3.96 -- until my BPL subscription ran out yesterday. Today, it's 0.61.

So, 85% of the ranking is the annual BPL subscription all by itself! Pretty silly..."

Edited by jshann on 12/18/2007 12:40:29 MST.

> So, 85% of the ranking is the annual BPL subscription all by itself! Pretty silly...

False assumption, too. MUST be false: new subscribers have a rating of 0.00, not 0.61 .

Perhaps the rating is compiled from summarising contributions in the Forum (IF you are a paying member) plus contributions to Reader Reviews (member or not). Try paying your subscription and see what happens to your score?

Here's how I figured:

Ranking @ 12/17/07: 3.94
Subscription expiry: 12/17/07
Ranking @ 12/18/07: 0.61

Ranking drop (pts) = 3.94 - 0.61 = 3.33

Ranking drop (%) = 3.33 / 3.94 = 84.5% or 85% after rounding.

In other words, as soon as you stop paying, you get the revelation that nothing else you did really mattered at all!

Of course, the ranking system itself doesn't matter all that much either. Just my observation -- and perhaps a cold reflection of BPL's corporate philosophy / priority.

Edited by ben2world on 12/18/2007 13:27:59 MST.

That math looks excellent. You get a gold star.

Hey Ben - do you know whether Bob Molen has a higher score than you do?? LOL!
Cheers,
Sven

I like the outdoors because there is no status system there: you're all reduced to pretty much the same level, no matter who you are in "the real world."

Assigning a Mason-style numerical status to community members (based mostly on their contributions BPL owners' car payments as you have pointed out) seems as petty and "city" as gauging people by their post counts.

I think that if you want to "rank" your fellow community members, you should do it based on their contributions: helpfulness, insightfulness, civility, humility, knowledge, and background. These can all be gleaned from reading a few of any member's posts, and they *cannot* be quantified by a 3-digit number.

When I was "assigned my rank" (by those who outrank me?) I was thinking of being annoyed -- until I realized that the ranks are more or less random anyway so most people probably ignore them.

I know I do.

I am just happy now that I appear to know more than Ben. Well that's the case, isn't it? I mean, my ranking is higher.

No, you're mistaken. Your ranking is actually 10.61, however, the ranking field doesn't display the significant digit.

Thanks, George. That's got to be it! :)

Brian -- when FamilyGuy thinks he outranks me, that's personal. :(

Edited by ben2world on 12/19/2007 17:56:47 MST.

>>In other words, as soon as you stop paying, you get the revelation that nothing else you did really mattered at all!

I was about to write:

"Yes, Ben. It's true. You have to pay for your ranking AND the esteem of your peers. So re up or face your lowly status".

So I'm glad George cleared it up for us.

But I have to go. There's a sale on indulgences down the block.

Edited by Dondo on 12/19/2007 18:06:12 MST.

Well Dondo, if paying for an indulgence gives you a leg up in the afterlife -- that's a pretty darn good investment for your money if you ask me! :)

I too noticed that my sub just ran out and the 3 to the left
of the decimal disappeared.

the bpl rank should be removed, or (as another person wrote) be based on something more meaningful than it perhaps is currently. my advice... just ignore it!

Don't many internet forums have some sort of ranking system for members/posters? I have seen everything from stars to name-ranks used to rate people's participation in a particular forum. I don't see anything wrong with the practice, even though I habitually post less than many folks and thus am perpetually at the bottom of the heap in many forums. Who cares?

I for one would never add a meaningless post to a thread just to drive up a ranking that means little to me anyway. No really; I would never do that. Heh-heh...

Michael

IMO, the current ranking system is the best option for BPL at this point. The system encourages people to post, buy gear, and pay membership dues, which, in turn, helps the BPL community. It may not be an accurate measure of quality posting, user reviews, etc, but it does serve a purpose.

It would be a nightmare to attempt to discern the quality of individual posts, so that is not an option. Think of the labor that would be involved with such an endeavour.

One idea would be to use a system similar to what Practical Backpacking (better known as Bernie's Backpacking) utilizes. Bernie's system relies on fellow members to assign credibility to others. It appears nobody uses that option over there, so enough said on that.

Some people take things too seriously, and in that case, please ignore my post due to my low ranking! (haha)

I think forums, by their very nature, subject posts to the gold standard of reviewing. It's called peer review. Throw it out there and, if it withstands the hoots, catcalls, and occasional attaboys of the peer group, the poster may be on to something.

I have noticed that recently the BPL rank is not showing up in forums next to a users avatar (on my computer anyway). I never had a good understanding of what went into establishing the rank, but generally knew that people with a high rank could probably be trusted.
Fortunately now that I have been reading forums on this site somewhat regularly for a while, I recognize several people who constantly have good advice (Ben Tang and David Olson are among them... despite their new low rank) and can probably get by without ranks displayed... but would still like them back.

p.s. I do realize you can still get to a users rank by viewing their profile, but I am not about to do that just to check up on users as I browse the forums.

Hey Peter:

Thanks, I'm flattered. :)

Reading your post, I suddenly realize that the ranking next to each member's name/avatar has indeed disappeared! I think this happened no more than just a day or two ago.

Maybe BPL has finally made it past their denial stage and realized just how silly their ranking algorithm is!