Re: planet "top posters" section

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>> That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think
>>> about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are
>>> listed under the teams.  Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or
>>> fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all -
>>> individuals within the team have <=2?
>>
>> Well, that's an incentive to join a team.
>
> Hmm.  Well, by that theory, Bruce should quite his job: he'd go from
> somewhere buried down in the weeds to the number one spot on the list.
>
> It's clearly not our policy to give people who are on a team a more
> prominent position.  More like the reverse.  Personally I think I'd

Yes, if any, the reverse. And we definitely don't want to promote
team-members over individuals. Or I should say, we have traditionally
not wanted to do that. All policies are of course up for discussion
:-)

> favor just listing the top 6-10 posters (regardless of whether they're
> on a team) and the top 6-10 teams (without listing the posters) and
> call it good.

If it doesn't show who's a member of a team, isn't that very confusing?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/