[EquitableEngineer]

8 of the top 10 monthly posters are simply vendors whose posts are almost exclusively bumps adding very little to the discourse on the forum. Not really a true representation of the active and contributing users on the forum, anyone else agree ? If there is consensus on this then it might be worth blocking vendors from appearing on the top 10 list.

[Defeat]

I completely agree with this. I believe I made a suggestion to address this, but it was turned down by @Oni and @Jiggly

[EquitableEngineer]

I completely agree with this. I believe I made a suggestion to address this, but it was turned down by @Oni and @Jiggly

Glad im not alone alone on this. What is the process for this type of change ?

[Drako]

I don't think there is a good way to implement this. You could add a 'vendor' role, but then an administrator or moderator would have to step in and add that role to any existing vendors. It would take too much time.

[EquitableEngineer]

I don't think there is a good way to implement this. You could add a 'vendor' role, but then an administrator or moderator would have to step in and add that role to any existing vendors. It would take too much time.

Couldn't they just be manually removed form the top posters list ? There are only really 3 or 4 offenders anyway.

Edit: I was referring to top 5 here

[Oni]

I'd be more inclined to limit how much people can bump their threads. An issue I'm seeing is that a lot of the people under top posters are there because they are consistently bumping more than 5 threads.

I don't think there is a good way to implement this. You could add a 'vendor' role, but then an administrator or moderator would have to step in and add that role to any existing vendors. It would take too much time.

There's a lot of ways to handle it, but top posters is simply based on numbers. It's never going to be a measure of quality. Asides from making the market not count towards post count, other solutions would be pretty query heavy unless we rely on caching. On an average month, we get upwards of 20 million pageviews so fewer queries is better.

[EquitableEngineer]

There's a lot of ways to handle it

I think a this point any solution is a good solution. Can always be refined thereafter.

[Defeat]

I'd be more inclined to limit how much people can bump their threads. An issue I'm seeing is that a lot of the people under top posters are there because they are consistently bumping more than 5 threads.

I don't think there is a good way to implement this. You could add a 'vendor' role, but then an administrator or moderator would have to step in and add that role to any existing vendors. It would take too much time.

There's a lot of ways to handle it, but top posters is simply based on numbers. It's never going to be a measure of quality. Asides from making the market not count towards post count, other solutions would be pretty query heavy unless we rely on caching. On an average month, we get upwards of 20 million pageviews so fewer queries is better.

That's not a bad idea.

[HackingRealm]

Being top poster is just a title it doesn't affect your profile much; being or not. Moreover traffic should be visible and feel like forum is active. I suggested @Oni to bring hide tags but as he says they're useless. If hide tags are back members will feel much active and top poster will be different. Plus it helps to sell upgrades. I don't know, it's up to admin; want to make money or not.

[mothered]

If hide tags are back members will feel much active

I've never been a fan of hide tags - they entice LQ posting just to view content.