Re: planet "top posters" section

On Monday 19 April 2010 04:21:08 Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:17, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:29, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Treat
> >>>
> >>> <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> wrote:
> >>>> Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more
> >>>> trouble/confusion than any benefit it has produced, and at this point
> >>>> I think it could be dumped, and with that our top 20 would become much
> >>>> more reasonable looking. imho.
> >>>
> >>> That'd be fine with me, too, as would any of the other suggestions so
> >>> far offered.
> >>
> >> I disagree - I like the teams feature.
> >>
> >> How about just listing top posters and top teams separately, and not
> >> including the people under each team. Maybe something like
> >>
> >> Top posters
> >> -----------------
> >>
> >> Robert Treat (OmniTI) - 5
> >> Andreas Scherbaum - 5
> >> Magnus Hagander - 4
> >> Dave Page (EnterpriseDB) -2
> >> Bruce Momjian (EnterpriseDB) - 2
> >>
> >> Top teams
> >> ----------------
> >>
> >> OmniTI - 5
> >> EnterpriseDB - 4
> >
> > This is the best idea I've seen so far, I think.
> >
> >> My only concern with that is that the poster names could become quite
> >> long.
> >
> > Yeah. We could limit the length of the name, I guess - but most are
> > short already. CommandPrompt is the longest, and that's not really
> > long. (It doesn't say "CommandPrompt, Inc" for example, which would've
> > been easily shortened).
> >
> > I whipped up a quick test (the first part, which is adding the teams
> > to the top listing, is trivial.

I actually think this looks bad... it's pretty cluttered. I'd rather we
dropped the teams from the top and listed team members under their respective
teams (offset). *shrug*

> > The second one will require the
> > reqwrite of a query :P). Here's how it looks for me (attached).
> >

More importantly, there's a flaw in your query me thinks. OmniTI currently
shows having 9 posts in the team section, which also matches the breakdown of
my cohorts (4,3,2) in the top posters section, however I also have a blog post
on the 13th, so I'd think that we should have at least 10 posts on our "Team",
no? I'm guessing others might be off as well, I only noticed cause I knew I had
blogged recently.

--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com