User rank should be a little more forgiving and give more insight

(Jeff Atwood) #9

I conceptually disagree that anyone should ever be “grinding” to anything. That is deeply wrong.

On the other hand I don’t want people to be frustrated if they can’t maintain. In this particular case there were two prior communications, one of which said “hey you are really on the edge there”.

(edit: I wonder, should we automate “you are on the edge” emails to TL3 users at risk of losing it? That might feel kind of naggy, but then they could not say we didn’t warn them, and we avoid general grindy nonsense.)

(Sander Datema) #10

I think you’re missing the point here. I don’t mind having whatever rank. But this is the Discourse forum where we talk about the development of Discourse… So I’m just sharing my ideas on usability, etc. And I want to understand why the things work the way they do.

This is not about me grinding for ranks here on Discourse and being all emotional about it. Don’t judge too soon.

That’s (part of) what I tried to explain…

(Jeff Atwood) #11

I’m just frustrated because I told you that you were on the edge a while ago, when you asked the first time why you didn’t have TL3. Then you turn around, do just enough to get it, and ask again, and act all surprised.

Hey, guess what, you are still on the edge. Just like I told you last time.

This is seriously a big surprise to you? Live by the edge, die by the edge. Get off the edge. :wink:

(I’m not ruling out other notifications but this specific example is odd for the reasons I’ve explained a few times now.)

(Sam Saffron) #12

My issue is that we set up a soccer game where the rules are very hard to find, the score board is only visible to mods and the trophy can be yanked away at the drop of a hat

(Sander Datema) #13

Of course it is. I simply had no idea you could lose a trust level automatically. And it wasn’t clear from your PM’s either. So that’s why I asked about it again. Maybe it was a bug, how could I know. And because we already spoke about it in PM I went there instead of opening a new topic.

Well, maybe I should have read that other topic about trustlevel being reevaluated every x period. Would have kept me on TL3 as well. :wink:

I completely agree.

(Dave McClure) #14

As far as showing progress, there have been very few complaints or inquiries about how to reach TL2 that I’m aware of. So I don’t think its too important to display the score board explicitly, but perhaps there could be some additional badges for some of the other TL3 requirements.

I think this is still the main issue here:

No one has ever complained about dropping from TL2 to TL1 or from TL1 to TL0, because its not possible, but

Trust level 3 is the only one that has conditionals like these, which is were this volatility stems from:

In addition to the 2-week check implemented, another possible improvement would be to have ‘high-water’ and ‘low-water’ marks for these kinds of requirements.

For instance, these could be changed to:

To gain TL3 status you:

  • must have visited at least 60% of days
  • of topics created in the last 100 days, must have viewed 30%
  • of posts created in the last 100 days, must have read 30%

To lose TL3 status you:

  • must have visited less than 40% of days
  • of topics created in the last 100 days, must have viewed less than 20%
  • of posts created in the last 100 days, must have read les than 20%

(probus) #15

I don’t think most have even noticed the trust levels exist, so naturally you wouldn’t get any complaints regarding those no matter what we did. I don’t even remember what they do tbh except for TL0.


I think that’s the key here. Access to a category should never be revoked without warning. I know that @codinghorror warned you in this particular case, but I certainly won’t be manually warning everyone on my forum. It’s not feasible.

It does need to be automated.

(Sam Saffron) #17

I totally get this argument, stripping a few rights is one thing, but cutting you out of conversations you were on is a much more severe action.

I think as a minimum we should create a new group “trust-level-3-alumni” or something then people who want to set it up so conversation access remains, can (by deleting lounge and creating a new one that give access to both trust level 3 and alumni)

(Sander Datema) #18

Having trust-level-3-alumni makes things quite complicated I’m afraid. I rather like the high and low water idea of @mcwumbly.

(cpradio) #19

Or at the very least, sending an automated PM when they are getting close to losing their ability. I’m just not a fan of telling people: “Delete the lounge, and create a new one with these groups”

If you are going that route, make the default include the new group. Build it internally.

(Toby Erkson) #21

Hey, where is this Value - Requirement table? I’m an admin on our site and I can’t find this. Version

(Sander Datema) #22

This is the link you’re looking for (on the admin-profile page of a user)


(Peter N Lewis) #23

must have visited less than 40% of days
of topics created in the last 100 days, must have viewed less than 20%
of posts created in the last 100 days, must have read les than 20%

So what happens if a user is in mailing list mode and reads all the messages via email? Given the mailing list mode background for my discourse (and quite a few others), this could be a problem. I suppose I could just promote people to TL4 explicitly (can I promote them to TL3 explicitly and not have them lose it?).

I have to admit to really not understanding all the different TL rights and requirements - its one of the most complex aspects of Discourse.

(Dave McClure) #24

no insight, but added some forgiveness here :palm_tree:

(Neil Lalonde) #25

In that case, I would lower the “leader requires days visited” site setting (/admin/site_settings/category/trust) to 0 or some other low number. As always, make sure the other thresholds make sense for your community.

(Tobias Eigen) #26

Has anyone come up with a SQL query to see a list of users and their “leader requires days visited” site setting? I’m considering lowering this number from 50% to something like 20% for just this reason @peternlewis gives. We have many trusted members who otherwise would have attained TL3 by now but have not because they use email or travel frequently or simply don’t log in enough days to get it.

(Tobias Eigen) #27

I’ve done this now and it works very well for us.

(Michael Downey) #28

Did you come up with the query or just make the changes?

(Tobias Eigen) #29

I just changed it. Didn’t have time to wait for a query.

The TL3 stuff has become a real topic among the moderators I explained it to… people really took it personally that they weren’t reaching the requirements.

We still only have 7 members automatically promoted to TL3, which I think is fine.