Shouldn't there be a 4 in front of that figure? Even so, you have about 3000 to go before you catch me.
I got it from the same source that NYDutch shows, but also from following the directions I gave in post #17. I know where your data came from, and the "Reviews All" column seems to give an accurate listing of the top reviewers, but the "Forums All" column just can't be right. Stop and think about it. You and I have been admins forever. Do you really think we would have only a mere 300 posts?
Doc may have been looking at “Likes” instead of total points. He did have 4334 total posts and 334 likes. He is in the top three in both categories. Darrell
It appears that I may have opened a can of worms. Not my intention. Would it be possible to make the data public again? I can’t see that there would be a privacy issue but then I am not a lawyer either. Darrell
But something doesn't seem quite right about those numbers. What puzzles me is that John Blue is one of the top listings but, as a few of you know, John died >5 years ago. I'm not sure we even had a functioning forum under the software that was in use at the time. We did have way of messaging between the admins but I don't think there was public participation. So it's difficult to understand how John could have had as many "messages" unless they did include something other than forum posts. Furthermore, by way of comparison I have ~5,000 posts on IRV2 but I post there much more frequently than I do here because it's a much larger and busier forum. I find it difficult to believe I have nearly as many posts here as I do there.JMO And if the "Forums All" column is incorrect, what do the numbers represent?
I agree. The "Forums All" does not seem to be working correctly or it stands for something other than what its name suggests--all forum posts. We definitely had a forum on the old site, but it did not have all the different divisions that we have now. It was a public forum and John was a major contributor as well as many members who posted regularly, but a lot have dropped out. Again, I have no idea if the system is counting posts correctly, but I believe some of us could have 5000+. I'm equally sure we have way more than 300. Good question. I have no idea. No, no can of worms, just a good discussion. The post info is already displayed on our avatars and the number of reviews a member has is displayed on members' profiles (we just don't seem to have a list anymore), so I don't believe there is a privacy issue, but I'm not a lawyer either. I'll try to find out about displaying review and forum post information again.
For what it's worth and maybe I'm repeating what has been mentioned, As a member I post once or twice per week so my forum total seems correct. I tend to think it would be a mapping issue on the admin level? Mike
You are on the right track. The "Messages" count that you see displayed under avatars does appear to be correct. However, there is a system report that only admins can see and that is the one that does not seem to be counting correctly. That report has been brought to management's attention. Also I mentioned that it would be nice to see how many reviews have been posted by members along with a list of the members with the most posts. That will probably be added when the next large update is launched, and no, I do not know a date for that.
