I've kind of wondered why a post count rating is used in the first place. They never lead to anything more than dumbed-down postings by people trying to boost their numbers.

If the forum were trying to promote lots of page views then that's the way to go, but for actually weeding out the crud I've always thought that using "Thanks" counts, or some sort of nominations system where Mods and VIP's could submit members they feel are of value for elevated status... or some combination of the 2 was the better way to go.

Just using myself as an example, I have no clue what the post count levels even are here to be honest, because I don't have the time to post lots of crap and blagh blagh garbage on any forum. I use most of my time for business. If I have something to share, or can add to a discussion I'll chime in, but otherwise I keep my junk thoughts to myself.

Still, I think most of the posts I have made here--most of which were probably about squeezing more out of article marketing and rss feeds in some way--were quality and of value to others.

So, someone like me (or even with better stuff than me to offer) doesn't even look at what post counts mean because lets say I need 150 to reach some next level as a user, that'll take me a year or more because I don't waste time posting dribble and rarely engage in non-business discussions like this one.

But at the same time some idiot can drive up a post count in weeks or even days for higher levels of access... to me that kind of system doesn't lead to higher quality just more noise.

At the same time locking too much away from noobs or low level users is equally bad for a forum because it provides less incentive for those with something of value to offer from bothering to participate in the first place.

Yep, the admin here has a tough job