User ranks

Interesting. While messing around trying to find a way to get rid of blobs but keep rep comments, I discovered that user ranks can be automatically assigned to user groups.

What that means is that people in certain user groups can all have the same words or image under their titles. I've now set it so mods, supermods, and admins have a rank defined-- this way, they don't need to use the word "mod" in their titles for people to be able to identify them.

It DOES give us a possibility for what others were asking in place of blobs-- for people like Jim, Victoria, James, etc. who are well-published members to be able to have a "rank" that designates them as such. I'd have to put them into their own usergroup, then give that a rank. Problem is that it's a lot of manual work and kind of debatable who belongs in the group.

But! I'm certainly open for comments and suggestions about it. Do we want a rank that designates the "pros"? If so, what do we call it and who belongs in the group? Just the few people we all agree on, or anyone who's been published in any form? (That could be most of the people on the board, and an awful lot of work for me.)

Thoughts. Share 'em!

I like Absolute Sage! Or Absolute Pro?

"Expert" makes me think of snotty comebacks.

This was partly fueled by Hermit's thread asking who Uncle Jim was and the PA newbie who wanted to know what gave us the right to talk, considering she thought we were all unpublished. I'd love to have a thread in the FAQs where some of the published veterans give short bios, so anyone who's curious can see who they're talking to and why people take so-and-so's advice seriously.

Good idea? Bad idea?

(P.S. Wouldn't just be for published authors. We also have some pro editors, an agent, publishing lawyer, etc. who I'd see in that category.)

Thanks! OK, I'll go start working on this.

Hi Wet Blanket.

reph said:

Hello, it's me, the wet blanket. Hermit and the PA lady were informed pretty quickly about the backgrounds of the people they spoke of. Are you sure this new feature is worth the extra work?

Click to expand...

Yeah, because for every one who actually asks, there are a lot more who don't ask but want to know. (I know, 'cause they send me PMs.) And we go through it pretty often, especially in the PA thread, when someone new comes in and asks, "Who are all you people and why should I believe you?"

Some of the stars here are modest about their accomplishments (see the point katiemac made). People can put their publishing histories and other credits on their profile pages if they want to.

Click to expand...

I know. Jim's a modest pain in my butt and Hapi still wants to be anonymous. But, my own opinion is that if you're going to give advice, people have a right to know at least in an abridged way that you know what you're talking about through experience.

I have no problem telling people what my credits are-- not to be a big ole' showoff, but to give them context. Not one of us can claim to be an expert in all areas. I'm well-experienced with nonfiction books, articles, and greeting cards; reasonably experienced with children's books; and a rank amateur with adult fiction. Others have completely different experience.

If we do a "Who are the sages?" thread, of course it would be optional to participate, but I think it would be nice to at least give a couple of sentences to let people know what each of their areas of expertise are.