Do you think that a certain MHO percentage would be a better metric to rise through the ranks than just activity?

I don't think they should be divorced, per se, but I attained Guru (again) and honestly I am the least helpful user on this website often finding myself taking deep pleasure in antagonizing the populace or giving them half answers for the sheer enjoyment of knowing that I can.

I feel as though, in light of the election's results, the problem of the ranking system can easily be attributed to the fact that rather than by merit a person is promoted through sheer force of will and ultimately boredom itself. In turn posting large numbers of meaningless and empty opinions leads not only to material wealth for no apparent reason without repercussion at no cost to but also titles afforded without any given expectation of performance.

If life were that easy then longevity, not ability, would be the sole decider of one's position in a company or corporation but of course this is a major falsehood. Why is it that this website does not encourage active participation through their ranking and reward system instead of passive participation? Surely this would be smarter and have more impact than paying graphic designers money for simply making the banner purple.

Do you think that a certain MHO percentage would be a better metric to rise through the ranks than just activity?

  • I agree ( and have just the idea! )
  • I agree
  • I disagree
  • I... want to have sex with you. o//////o
Select a gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy


Most Helpful Guy

  • i disagree. i post a lot of opinions in questions that don´t really look for most "helpful" xD so my mho percentage is pretty shit, which doesn´t represent the quality of my posts at all.


What Girls Said 0

No girls shared opinions.

What Guys Said 3

  • How exactly would you want it to work then?

    A lot of mho's are chosen by the system or because you posted something that confirms the asker's viewpoint. Other times mhos are given out on the basis of who posted the funniest meme or based on who they are friends with.

    • Well, in order to functionally gain a grasp on the situation you take an analysis of the average number of MHOs granted to any given account after X posts; for instance most accounts after 10,000 posts might have a baseline of 7%. Then you take the same X posts and measure up one, two and three percentage points and see if there are any major shifts or changes in numbers. Ultimately at some point going up one percent will reflect some form of camaraderie; you see you actually want the people who are popular to have the guru status so the notion of giving someone the award based on how much you like them isn't a bad thing and is in fact a very good thing.

      It is imperative for the function of the system to promote highly likable people, not just wise people, to the upper ranks as they serve two functions: 1. They are useful to the end goal of the website. 2. They are enjoyable to actually be around which makes them more or less living mascots.

    • Show All
    • Well.. I always lose when arguing against you so I figure there is no point.

      Also in this case, what you have said does seem reasonable. I don't really feel strongly enough about the ranking system on this site to argue.

    • You won that one time! About that thing!

  • I see your point.

  • Surprisingly as one GaG's super active users, I fully endorse this idea