Youngsters

[Christi_22]

well, when i was a kid my mother would of killed me to say i was under 14 as (im not saying there are any on here) any old pedo cud be on the luk out and well, get chatting to you ect.

its a valid point that yes some may want to now how old the person is, but clearly there is some sick people around, and maybe one day one of them might join this forum and they might clamp eye on some under 14's as they are classed as frys and then thats all it takes.

for that reason im out!

That is completely valid. There are sick people out there who prey on young people, sadly. my "idea" originally was to help, in hindsight, not so easy to implement realistically, especially on a forum which is open to anyone.

I know when my children were under 14, (even older) that I would keep an eye on what they were doing on the PC. so lil-x-me thanks for your contribution and understand where you are coming from totally

 

[kribensis12]

I think it's a idea with good intentions, but pointless in the end. I am 15( I know not 14, as the proposed age). But, being a kid, I am constantly undermined at lfs's ect. I'd rather not be undermined on a forum as well. If you give critcism( no matter how polite, blunt, or harsh it is). We should be able to take it. If not, we obviously have some growing up to do( being 14 or 15 ect. we do anyways). But most 14 yr olds can handle a little bit of criticism. I honestly wish people criticized me a little more. I have a rather high post count. And to me, It seems as if people look at the post count, and automaticallywrite you off.

So, I think this may be an idea with good intentions, but It's not something I'd vote for( if there was a vote). Possibly, if it was fine tuned, it would work.

IDEA: What we could do is, have the mods create a "quiz" that would be required to be filled out when people join( of course all active members would have to comply as well). So, after they take it, you could put on their profile " novice" ect. So, when other begginers or older members would know how trust worthy thier advice is, before enacting upon the advice.

^ just a thought. Sorry if it sounds stupid!

 

[aaronnorth]

the trouble with a quiz is that the fishkeeping hobby is very broad, from fish species, cycling methods, bacteria, plants, and different planting methods etc ect. I could go on forever!
Some forums have a little drop down tab and you tick whether you are a begginer, intermediate or expert etc.

But right know i think you can tell if someone is giving bad advice, as more often than not a few members will go against it and back you up, a few members saying "i agree with x" would tell you who is giving the correct advice.

 

[kribensis12]

True. I just figuerd since the talk about not knowing if the person is correct came up. I see the flaw in my quiz. I like the drop down menu idea though.

 

[Bignose]

The problem with any method of "grading" -- quiz, reputation points, post count, etc. is that they can all be manipulated in one way or another if that is your intention. The single most reliable measure of the quality of a person's post would be to look through some of their previous posts and see what they said. Even then, that doesn't guarantee anything, because people still make mistakes. I know that I have posted incorrect things in the past and have since learned about new information and now post different a different response to the same situation. And I fully acknowledge that the info I post today I may find out that it is wrong tomorrow. There are still plenty of new things being discovered about fish and fishkeeping.

The best posts always back up the opinions and statements posted with citations to good, credible sources. Sure, the vast majority of posts don't do that. But, I've found that the people I trust the most always try to discriminate between facts (that they post citations to where they got that fact), and their opinions and personal experiences (using phrases like "in my opinion..." or "I've found that...").

It is the people who post "facts" that they "know" to be true, and then when they get called on their un-true fact -- or even if just asked for an unbiased source -- get angry that really get to me. The people who treat skepticism like it is a dirty word really get to me, because skepticism doesn't necessary equal bad, it simply means that someone would like to see more information that backs up what is being said. That's it.

All in all, there is no one way to grade people on their posts. You really have to look at each individual post every time, and be willing to ask someone for more information to back up their claims. And take everything in the right perspective. Just because one person was able to successfully keep a goldfish and a green terror together in one tank doesn't mean it can happen all the time. That's the difference between one person's "hearsay" and many people's experience. The wisdom of the crowd is often right, though certainly not always. The evidence that is brought to support the claim is the ultimate decider.