Established Member.

[SwindonPkwy]

How do you become an 'established' member of this forum?

 

[YorkshireBear]

How do you become an 'established' member of this forum?

Based on amount of posts... youll get there.

 

[Eagle]

861 at last check...

 

[MikeWh]

By making enough posts. Not sure what enough is though. It's 5 to go from New to just Member.

 

[SwindonPkwy]

Okay, thank you.

That's another post closer!!

 

[150222]

It is at 1000 posts I believe.

 

[Nym]

Soon find out...

 

[SS4]

AFAIK there is no pre-determined limit. Some posters have had ~650 and been "established" whereas others with more posts are not.

Perhaps it's based on a random number generator for each user?

 

[causton]

Maybe related to length of time as well?

 

[Eagle]

The limit's been increased a few times, but I know it's been 861 for the last few weeks... because I passed 861 twice (due to the deletion of a whole thread) and crossed the threshold both times.

 

[Ivo]

This comes up every so often. As Eagle says the number gradually increases.

You may be interested to know that, when the system was changed to its modern format (previously there were individual titles for different post counts), the title "Established Member" was not proposed at all! It just goes to show how willing the staff are to listen sometimes

 

[bb21]

As some have pointed out, the threshold moves.

When it was first introduced, the line to cross is 594. I see that it has increased a fair bit since then.

 

[Clip]

The limit's been increased a few times, but I know it's been 861 for the last few weeks... because I passed 861 twice (due to the deletion of a whole thread) and crossed the threshold both times.

I feel the loss of post-count due to deletion of threads hurts you somewhat

 

[ainsworth74]

When it was first introduced, the line to cross is 594. I see that it has increased a fair bit since then.

Is there any reason for the seemingly arbitrary boundaries? I mean why 594 not 600? Or why 861 not 860?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Like causton I suspect it is based on both number and lenght of time factors. Either way, I am safely within Established terrirtory.

I do hope this doesn't lead to posting just for the sake of it...

 

[43021HST]

I don't think the established member title is anything to do with post counts, I think its to do with how long you've been on the forum.

 

[Eagle]

I don't think the established member title is anything to do with post counts, I think its to do with how long you've been on the forum.

As some have pointed out, the threshold moves.

When it was first introduced, the line to cross is 594. I see that it has increased a fair bit since then.

Scroll up? :roll:

 

[bb21]

Is there any reason for the seemingly arbitrary boundaries? I mean why 594 not 600? Or why 861 not 860?

I don't think the established member title is anything to do with post counts, I think its to do with how long you've been on the forum.

This is a possibility, however I am not sure exactly how it works. This is a question best answered by one of the admins.

 

[90019]

This is a possibility, however I am not sure exactly how it works. This is a question best answered by one of the admins.

It's like the Qi scoring system, no one really understands how it works.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Some people are definitly "established" in terms of how long they have been members!

 

[deltic1989]

What ever the limit is i know that I'm miles away from it at this point in time.

 

[Ivo]

I am not sure exactly how it works. This is a question best answered by one of the admins.

It's like the Qi scoring system, no one really understands how it works.

I've said this before, but Mojo told me in person (it must be in person; I can't find any applicable posts) that it simply uses a "random number". Based on the apparent 861 threshold, the definition of random would thus be a number that is not notable in any form (well, maybe being prime, but even it doesn't apply to 861). This was however quite some time ago, so it may have changed - I'm guessing otherwise, though.

 

[Eagle]

...the definition of random would thus be a number that is not notable in any form...

That's a paradox.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That's a paradox.

The difference between a paradox and an oxymoron....discuss.

For those of a mathematical leaning, give your thoughts upon the Hardy-Ramanujan Number.

 

[Nym]

Not this time in the morning paul, really...

And I'm not a Mathematician, but how about discussing the reduction in miller effect by use of different substrates in MOSFETs implemented recently, meaning a lower GS Capacitance and a faster switching time with less harmonics in a HF AC Switching system?

(Why do I feel like half my posts require a glossary at the end of them?)

 

[IanXC]

This is a possibility, however I am not sure exactly how it works. This is a question best answered by one of the admins.

I've always wondered if its set so that a fixed percentage of users are "Established" and so not only does the threshold change but members can loose as well as gain the status. I think that could explain the apparently random numbers.

 

[150222]

So is there a definetive awnswer? I must me getting close surely?

 

[Ivo]

I cannot find anything to suggest that the value of 861 has changed. This would suggest that you are indeed getting close.

 

[MarkyMarkD]

Not particularly relevantly, I notice that SwindonParkway seems to be the only user who puts a full stop at the end of thread titles!

 

[150222]

Not particularly relevantly, I notice that SwindonParkway seems to be the only user who puts a full stop at the end of thread titles!

I do on occasion! Depends on the title in question and whether it is relevent/appropriate. I'll always use a question mark if it's a question or an exclamation mark if I'm suprised though.