50 replies to this topic

[ColdAssHonky]

I voted yes right off the bat, but after thinking about my own situation I think I've changed my mind. When I first started lurking the boards it was hard to pick up on who you should be listening to right off the bat, but soon enough you could tell who the regulars deferred to recognize a quality answer that referenced experience or sources from off handed remarks that could be ignored.

[matt6150]

I can't decide how to answer this. I think it would be hard to name or vote someone to a Master Brewer title and leave it that generic. There might be somebody out there that has brewed for 20 years using extract, and know everything about. But not know a thing about all-grain.I like the "Master of ...." idea. And it doesn't have to really include Master in the title either. How about more of a resume either in the persons profile or there sig. Basically a mandatory questionair like "How many yrs. brewing all-grain", "how many yrs. brewing extract", "all electric brewer", "professional brewer", that sort of thing. I would never let a post count decide how much creditability someone has. Somebody out there that has been brewing for 30+ years both all-grain and extract on a system that can be used with electric and propane and just plain knows it all, might come and post only a couple times a month. They won't build up the post count and the sense of knowledge on the board. But if someone could look at there resume of brewing they could make a judge about how much the person knows.Then of course if you frequent the board enough you learn who is who and who you can trust.

[UGALawDawg]

Instead of using labels why not just add a line <----------------herethat says how long the poster has been brewing, or how much they have brewed. Generally the more experience a person has the more they know what they are talking about. It seems like this would be more helpful than just calling one guy a "master brewer" and the other a "n00b" or whatever.

[Blizz]

I voted No. I think it would stifle the board. If someone is not a designated Master Brewer/Guru, but still provides a proper or "correct" answer to someone's question, people would view their post with skepticism and tend to dismiss it. Also, the MB/MGs would be expected to answer each and every question. People who aren't MB/MGs would probably be less apt to get involved because no one would "believe" them.Let's don't mess with a good thing. People can sift thru the info presented here and pick out what is valuable to them.

[chuck_d]

That's something that we'll figure out later if we decide to go forward with this.

I feel that makes a difference for my vote. I can't vote for a system to be in place if I don't know what that system is. Hence without details on what this brew guru system would be I'd vote no because the board works as is.Reading through the rest of the thread I think this is a bad idea. It's going to create some sort of caste system on the board and introduce unnecessary politics into the community. If you want to enable ratings and just let them be, like on the old board, that's one thing, but I don't think this whole classification of posters is a good thing.

Edited by chuck_d, 07 April 2009 - 11:10 PM.

[Hightest]

... In case you missed it in the news forum, PH posts now count toward total post count.

While that certainly satisfies a concern of those whose frequent the PH, it also dilutes (and makes less objective) the use of the actual post count as a means to assess the basis for this topic.I'm not suggesting that the policy change, but it does somewhat eliminate identifying resident "brewing gurus" soley based on post count. Perhaps some less objective method will need to be developed by the board owners that might use post count as one of its factors - albeit a minor factor.I will add that I feel this type of attribution would be very helpful to new brewers as it was a something I struggled with when I first started reading brewing forums - how does one evaluate the experience and wisdom of posted advice

Edited by Hightest, 08 April 2009 - 05:06 AM.

[Mudd]

Can the post count be limited to the form posted in.ie; 300 ph posts show in the ph. 12 beer posts show in the beer forum.

[Gumbo Leviathan]

It depends how you determine who the masters/gurus are. If it involves everyone sending beer to the mods, I may be a little suspicious. :cussing:Edit to add something constructive... How about a reputation system that some boards have. This would be different than the user star rating system on the dead board in that you can give someone a point for each good post, or take one away for crap. Of course PH posts would be exempt to prevent someone from getting low star ratings cause they make one thread about how fat people suck. *shakes fist*

+1If this can be implemented as a working reputation system, then I like the idea. I guess, I am saying that this is a good idea if the method used for determining the titles is sound. If we allow people to add reputation points to others (in the non PH forums) it might work well. Who knows. I think it would be bad to allow reputation points to be taken away, except by moderator. That way, someone who might hold a grudge because of something said on the PH wont cause them to lose rep points.

[pods8]

I don't care if the PH posts count or not, even if they didn't it doesn't mean all those beer posts are quality ones... I'm reasonably knowledgeable but I've already cut my teeth on tons of questions/comments/lots of beer posts on the other board and tend to cherry pick what I read/respond to in the beer forum now. Where as someone new and supper stoked is going to rack up a lot of posts which may or may not be of good quality. Either way if people want to listen or not listen to me whatever, I know who I want to listen to, lol.

[brewhead]

i honestly don't care either way and don't really understand the hoopla over post counts

[BrewerGeorge]

Thanks for the comments, Everybody. I think we'll table this idea for now.