That doesn’t mean as much to me as getting 5 likes on posts in the last 100 days though. At least if they get 5 likes in the last 100 days, you can evaluate they are still contributing useful responses/engaging the community. If you are looking beyond that, you are simply saying, what they did over 100 days is still popular.
I just added this. Like the other requirements, they can be configured in the site settings:
Given the requirement to read and create so many posts, these defaults seem pretty easy to satisfy, imho.
Also @cpradio you are wayyy over the minimums here for the record
We set the minimums pretty low for a reason… I just feel leaders really should be liking stuff, and getting some nominal amount of likes, on a regular basis. That’s part of leadership, encouraging others and posting content that others think is positive.
Yeah, I figured I probably was, as I like a lot of bugs, but I think it will be interesting to see how that translate on different forums/communities.
I’m slightly playing devils advocate, but I also believe limiting what posts the likes were received on, makes a lot of sense. Because the leader could be riding on stuff they did over a year ago that is being viewed by new members. Just a thought, trying to form a discussion on it
And just to give fair warning, as this is a new added requirement – of our complete list of currently 32 leaders you need to cast / receive a bit more likes to meet the new TL3 thresholds:
Everyone else is well over the minimums for likes given/received in the last 100 days.
(And TL;DR – 30 likes given and 20 likes received are the thresholds.)
I appreciate this change; there have been a few users on my forums who’ve hit trust level 3 without contributing all that much substance. Even they were surprised to have gotten access to the lounge:
Leaders should definitely hit a Like quota before being promoted.
Longer term this is likely to turn to 20 likes over 20 days, to avoid binge liking to become a leader.
I’d start with that personally, but I believe that is a good idea. It helps identify that the leaders are still creating quality work in the community.
Made this public cause the change was made and needs to be communicated.
Does this apply retroactively? (Is there a way to make it apply retroactively and downgrade users from trust level 3?) I’m on 1.0.0 now.
Yes it does, but there is a 2 week grace period before they lose TL3
Ah right, I didn’t realize that. The
leader promotion min duration setting controls this.
EDIT: To clarify, does that setting mean if a user becomes a Leader but then is inactive for a couple months, they will be demoted?
I can appreciate the intent behind this, but I think it should be a lot clearer as to how close you are to being a Leader. I mean, people generally won’t keep track of events for 100 days, so they won’t know if they are becoming Leaders or not, and it can raise confusion among them.
I’m sure that a progress bar approach has been suggested, but I’d really like to see this implemented in some way or the other. Preferably in the Profile page and only to that user and the administrators.
Yes, depending how active your forum is, it could take less time for them to get demoted.
I definitely don’t want my users to know all the specific numbers needed to become a Leader for fear of spamming, but I do agree there should be some way to communicate if a user if close to becoming a Leader or losing their Leader promotion.
What’s being done to make sure users are aware of these magical requirements?
And I don’t mean retro-actively (notifying current leaders), I mean new users.
I suppose that’s reasonable, but how will the discourse software platform communicate this to it’s users?
Because your proposal of coupling trust level with “likes” is kind of invisible to most users, it’s “magical” in that sense and not a convention that I think I’ve seen anywhere else.
How does my mom know that “liking a post” has more significance than just communicating that she likes something?
AFAIK, the whole documentation for trust levels is a topic somewhere here on Meta. Questions about gaining trust levels seem like obvious FAQ entries, if the default FAQ ever gets any Qs.
Documentation on trust levels can be found here:
Yes, that was the topic I was referring to.