Nuking the Hall of Fame


I'm thinking about ditching the Hall of Fame. Here's some background. Objections?

UPDATE: Thanks for the feedback everybody! For now the "Hall of Fame" is renamed to the equally cheesy "Rising Stars", and just shows half of what used to be there (the half where you're only eligible to appear on the page if you joined in the last three months). Many good points raised about entry points into the site, other statistics that would be valuable, and others. Thanks again!

Perhaps it would be most useful to have a 'Listology Guide' page that a veteran Listologist (Jim would probably be most qualified, of course) would write as a brief history and overview of the most important Listology members and content, updated slightly every now and then (bimonthly? - whatever) or something to reflect recent additions/changes.

Right now my computer is dead, but if I'm ever able to revive it (*vent alert* and recover THREE YEARS of hard work that was on it!) I wouldn't mind drafting such a guide and improving it via discussion, especially from members who've been around longer and are more familiar with the Listology content I don't generally follow that thoroughly (books, television, etc.).

BTW, I believe I mentioned this before but it you want to have a true Hall of Fame I think some names should be retired off of the list and into a Hall of Fame. Then you could have 3 lists, Members Who Have Been Around The Longest And Are Still Active (Whatever you want to name that list like Hall of Fame), Active New Comers (Whatever you want to call that list), and a mid-tier list like Recently Very Active Members and you could leave the Hall of Fame and New Comers off that list to give the hump in the bell curve some props.

"Hall of Fame" has a slight conotation of inactivity. That impression is certainly reinforced by being popped into a member page where lists are organized alphabetically with no cue as to active/recent postings. I'd prefer to be whisked away to the HOFM's *Recent Posts* page. I think that would provide a more accurate, enlightening and enjoyable experience with people who crank out excellent content.

I definitely think that a HOF helps to provide an entrée to the site as a whole. Perhaps it might be a better point of entry than *jump right in!* It seems to me that this would give newbies more of a grounding as to the character of Listology without throwing them immediately off the high board into the cold water of the deep end of the shark tank. (With the jellyfish of opprobrium and the mollusks of indifference. (" Mollusks of Indifference " now that is a good name for a band. (Parenthetically speaking.))) But, if I remember my point (and you'd think that I would), it would also orient them in the direction of what is valued as well as avoiding initial three-item lists of trash and no return visits.

Having said that, I think it is important to keep making an initial/introductory list easy and readily apparent to those who are taking their first dip in the pool. (Okay, I'll stop it now... unless I can think of any more public recreation facility allusions.)

A *What's Hot* or even "Who's Hot* that counts the number of posts generated in the past two weeks might be fun/instructive. However, I'm apprehensive about the number of gratuitous two-line posts that this might generate. Threads generated, number of participants, character count and other such details could be helpful. But from what I can gather, *Site Statistics* are an asymptotic promise. Go ahead, look that up. There's no judgement there... and you will start to use it in everyday conversation.

I also like the HOF as it stands. I certainly don't mind the black box selection process (and I worry that those who are curious simply want to figure out how to get on or stay on the roster.) Besides, you can always googlecount members and keep the true meaning of "Hall of Fame" close to your heart.

Congratuations, Rushmore. You are draped with the seaweed of eminence.

It seems as though you may have discussed your way into a corner on this topic with bertie, Jim. There simply can't be a 100% fair way to judge popularity with so many variables. That said, I think most of us are or were perfectly satisfied with 80% fair and 20% your perogative. Hell, it's your website. Spin that 20% of yours any way you like. I have absolutely zero complaints where I stand. In fact I've worked damn hard making sure I stay off the radar, hidden within the "two star" id we call the majority.

In contrast, since I dropped off some time ago, I have no objection to it disappearing.

Aaack! It's just my luck that you would think of discarding it, now that I'm on it!

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the Hall of Fame is mainly for newcomers to see a list of people who contribute the most around here, right? I'm all for scrapping the Hall of Fame, but I think you should create some sort of guide for newcomers. Maybe you could just make a list of people who have been the most active in the past three months (regardless of when they joined)?

Of course, then people may never realize the greatness of the contributions of some people who haven't been around in a while. But then again, maybe this way jblack will stop getting random comments from new members on his lists that haven't been updated in years.

I would like to see statistics on other members, like number of endorsements, frequency of posts, or number of contributions.

I don't care if it goes bye-bye. The Old Timers section doesn't do much but I do find the Newcomers part useful. I would also say that Hall of Fame doesn't really describe what it is.

I have no objections. I had a good run on the Newbie list, and enjoyed it while it lasted :-)

But I always thought it strange that dayfornight, who always posted more and created more lists than me, never made the HoF (to my knowledge).