Assuming the points given for a particular task don't change, are we sure we want 1,000,000 as the top number? I think Oliist is the member with the most points and he's at about 928,000 points and that's after years of working on the game DB.

I realize the top level needs to be reserved to a few special members who contributed a lot to the site but I don't think we should put it so high that we have to wait a few years before anyone of our members can reach it.

My approach to the whole rank thing would be setting the top requirement and the number of levels we want then once this is set in stone we'll start bitching about how the should be divided.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/members.php?name=&gender=&keyword=&country=&type=&order=Points

If you look at that page, there are 13 total members that are over 100,000 points.  Of those 13 members, I believe oliist has called it quits, and pichu_pichu has not been active since January (So 11 active members are >100,000 points).  So technically speaking, of our active members, the highest points is actually darth at ~318,000.  Your next highest is Soriku at ~257,000, and then Seece at ~165,000.

Based on that, one would think having a 500,000 (So those highest members have something to strive for) points max would be perfectly fine.  You could also have a 250,000 points rank to distinguish these two marvelous users.  Below 250,000, to be quite frank, having 100,000 would work perfectly fine considering that also would only pertain to 9 other active users (So having a rank that only pertains to 9 active users would, at least in theory, be a really high honor).

For the next lower level, if you take >70,000, you would have 20 total members, with 18 active members.  After that, if you take 50,000, you would have 37 total members, with 35 active members.

So regardless of what happens, it really would make sense to have the following as the top levels (assuming 15 total levels get used)

15. 500,000

14. 250,000

13. 100,000

12. 70,000

11. 50,000

I never really looked at it this hard before, but when I really looked at the amount of members by points, why should we have 50% of our rankings devoted to such a slim percentage of our users?  With these top 5 rankings, you will have 33% of the rankings divided up for 64 active users.  Where's the honor for those that put so much work into the site you say?  The honor is that these users have a ranking that extremely few other people have obtained.

Now, these next 10 rankings are thought up much quicker (and have nothing to do in regards to number of users in that category), but I really do think at least 11-15 should be looked at thoroughly by the admins, because there is good reasoning as to why it is split up like that.

10. 40,000

9. 30,000

8. 20,000

7. 15,000

6. 10,000

5. 7,500

4. 5,000

3. 2,500

2. 1,000

1. -

Once again, I think we're trying to do too much at the same time.

If we forget about how they should be separated for now, do you agree that the top value of 1,000,000 is too high? Also how many ranks do you think there should be?

It doesn't matter if only a few people have the higher ranks, why should they be penalised for people that don't do nearly as much work? They shouldn't. You need to get out of the mindset where it's all even for everyone because A) it's unfair to people that put effort in and B) like Machina said, points arnt static.

I've said this over and over, the rank and points syste is based on putting effort across the entire site, not just posting, which is what the majority of users here do. If they want to rank up, if they care about the ranking system, like you claim you want them too, they simply have to put more effort in, rank 10 - 40k is just laughably low. Only having 3 ranks for the people that will appreciate this ranking system/points system the most (yes) is unfair, and you're being to generous to users that are practically unknown and do nothing for the site.

Looks good to me. Rank 11's 110,000 points looks a bit weird but I think the progression in pts required is more important than having nice even numbers anyway.

Yeah 100k would be nicer but as you said, progression is more important. It seems like an even system to me as well 0 - 5 is for low members, 6 - 10 is for regulars, and 11 - 15 is for people that put in serious effort, or leo-j

Edit - I also want to lick your avatars nipples.

Focus, Seece! Focus! :P

Not trying to get into an argument, but it has gotten to the point where I want to add this in.  I realize perfectly fine that points are for contributing to the site.  That makes perfect sense to me, and I know perfectly well that I haven't done much else other than posting.  My issue is that the points for "contributing" to the website are absolute bullshit.

Approximately a week ago, I finally decided to add 6 games that weren't yet added.  I get my points for this, but am never even given the opportunity to add a release date or the box art as I wanted to.  Whoever accepted my submission decided to essentially "steal" those points for themselves.  So because they are a DB Admin, they just get to steal points that I should have gotten the opportunity to get, not them.  So sorry for being crude, but it is absolute bullshit that the people stealing points for something like that are the ones that get rewarded with higher ranks for "appreciating" the ranking system.

Just adding the release date and box art for those 6 games would have given me 54 more points, but instead, somebody who didn't even find the game themselves gets those 54 points.

I immediately lost most, if not all of my interest to add games to the website, because all that happens is I get 10 points, and some admin who "appreciates" the points system more gets a freebie 9 points.

So yes, you are right, I don't appreciate the system as much as some may, because the points system is massively flawed where certain people have first access to essentially steal any and all points from a certain category.

The DB Admin that did that was told not too, and all DB Admins have been told to wait 24 hours to add anything to games people have submitted. Regardless, it wasn't against the rules and they wern't 'stealing' anything, its change was a gesture of good will.

Regardless, I've managed to gain over 18,000 points without being a Game DB Admin (Only just been hired)

Not to mention you just tarred every Game DB Admin with the same brush, ironically, the game DB Admin that did that (who I shant name) isn't even a high ranking member. So it's rude and unfounded you claim all the high ranking members got there through 'stealing' points.