To be a full member you have to be on it and post 50 posts. I think that is a bit much because people could lose interest by then. I think it should be changed back to 30. Opinions?
To be honest, being a full member is over-rated. I've commented on like three pictures and barely have been the in chatroom Besides, you have only 14 posts left. You can do it
Just to clarify, it never has been 30 posts. The 50+ posts/2 weeks membership requirement has been in place since the site introduced the system back in 2008. I was one of the team members who consulted on this and agreed to set it as such. If anything, the threshold has become increasingly difficult to maintain as the site has continued to grow, as we have exempted it from activity inflation and thus widened the catchment of people we have to review to determine suitability for the usergroup. These challenges are only going to continue increasing as internet safeguarding guidelines evolve, and the organisation continues to expand. Therefore, it is unlikely that the eligibility threshold is going to decrease at some point. Instead, the staff team has been working to overcome the considerable challenges that we face just by keeping a threshold in place that was previously set at a time when the site had a fraction of the activity that it had back then. Back when this threshold was set, the site had about 300-500 new posts per day on average. Nowadays, we're creeping closer towards 2000 new posts per day as an average (and over 100 new threads per day), so the activity inflation that we have exempted the full membership system from being affected by is, quite frankly, quite astronomical. We would give ourselves considerable breathing space if we instead just increased the threshold, but we have instead sought to maintain it to try and balance our safety considerations alongside user experience. It's not my place to pass judgement on how people use EC or their primary reasons for being here, but if they aren't capable of reaching 50 posts without losing interest then there's little I can really do to address that. Additionally, the user group is primarily there for people who have demonstrated that their activity gives us reasonable cause to believe they can be trusted. Whether 50 posts is enough to demonstrate such a criteria is a whole discussion in itself, so trying to assess it on a smaller scale would only exacerbate those concerns (and for good reason).
I think it's easy to reach 50 posts, if it were 500 then I'd say people have a right to complain. *Shrugs* Personally I could care less what the number is because I like this site enough to be able to reach it with time.
I believe I became a full member at approximately 150 posts, kind of forced me to create threads and respond to others, 50 would have been much quicker. Glad to have full membership to not only chat but to PM other full members.
No, absolutely not. It's there to weed out people who aren't here for EC's intended purpose. Now it may not be fun waiting for your application to be processed, but to my understanding, there have been incidents in the past that make it a necessary step, no matter how much a pain-in-the-ass it can be for some members.
I think 50+ posts / 2 weeks full membership requirement is so reasonable. It's important that the staff makes sure that people who are going to be a full member are trustworthy. Anyhow, there is just a minor difference between full members and regular members.
I wouldn't mind personally if it becomes say 200 posts/1 month. Because it's there for a reason. People who are truly invested in EC and interested in making friends and posting will reach the post count no matter how high it is post, no matter how long it takes because they're tied to the community.
I think that the 50 post thing is completely reasonable and I wouldn't mind if it were higher. It's really a matter of your dedication to the community. A lot of people commenting here have put it pretty well.
I think it's perfectly reasonable. I'm not planning to be a full member anyways. I'm not too good at PMing people anyways.
I think 50-100 is totally fair. 500 is way too much. 50 is less than I'd implement if I made the system, but as a user, its pretty ideal.
I've joined both the one thousand- and two thousand clubs and are closing in on number three, and I haven't used the Chat Room at all. Or yes, I have, actually, now I remember. But yeah, for like 10 min in total. I wouldn't mind being a regular member, it really wouldn't make a difference to me.
I think that the 50 posts/2 weeks requirement for becoming a full member is fair and reasonable as if the threshold was lowered then the staff would have less posts to use to assess a member's intent and behaviour on the forum before deciding to approve the application for full membership. If people are interested in using the forum to help others, make friends or to get help then they should quite easily reach the full membership threshold.
I've personally always found it a good thing to have such a limit. In fact, I always found it to be a bit on the low side.
I think it's perfectly fair. But to be honest, i never use any full member features. Like i have used the chatroom about 3 times, only received PM's really and dont think i've ever commented on a photo. I don't see why new members are that bothered, then again, i guess i was earlier. ---------- Post added 27th Jan 2016 at 09:18 PM ---------- I think it's perfectly fair. But to be honest, i never use any full member features. Like i have used the chatroom about 3 times, only received PM's really and dont think i've ever commented on a photo. I don't see why new members are that bothered, then again, i guess i was earlier.