Re: planet "top posters" section

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
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.

...Robert