Junior Member, Member, Senior Member.

I would like to propose that these designations are irrelevant and shoud be removed from below the poster's name. The assigned status seem to be governed by the number of posts someone has made, information which already displayed, and is therefore redundant.

Perhaps it would be more useful if it indicated whether the poster was a customer or not. That would help spot the spammers and the trolls.

...if I'm labeled as a webassist customer instead of junior member

Ernie

Yes, I'd go with that.

As the person whose throw-away remark may well have prompted this thread, I tend to agree. Yes ... why not just say 'webassist customer'?

And maybe also give the date of the purchase of their first web product? This could easily be determined from their account, and might also cover situations in which people for whatever reason, simply changed their email handle?

Or ... might it be better just to stick to the date of their first post to this forum? A person might not want to be identified, for whatever reason, on a return to posting, and if they came back with a new user name but same date for a purchase WebAssist members who were smart (might be one or two here, but you can never tell where they are hiding, sometimes!!!) could put two and two together and re-identify those who didn't want to be re-identified.

Why not just 'WebAssist Customer', date of first post, and number of total posts. All has exactly the effect intended.

WOW!!
I just noticed.
I have been elevated.
Lookeeee Mama.
I no longer 'Junior Member'.
I now just ... 'Member'.
Keeewwwwwllllllll!
I feel so ... non-Junior-ish!!!!

I'm off to get all lord-y and might-y over some hapless dude somewhere. He or she better watch out.
Bye now.

Hi

yes I agree that the designations are to a degree pointless they do however provide a general idea of if a user is a visitor who returns often and if there are a large number of posts it would be a fairly logical assumption that they have both knowledge and are prepared to share.

Several manufacturers defray their support costs by providing specific users with free copies of software to allow them to help in basic forum questions, in doing so it releases the really clever techies to sort out the difficult ones.

Support is always a cause for discussion and as a user of oodles of software I'd say WA is pretty good for what is essentially free support. Most companies wont support anyhting thats been modified or changed let alone help you to get it to work.

cheers

Ian

Nice to be talking to someone from Weston-Super-Mare. Seems so far away from here!! Also considerably decreases the chances of being misunderstood, which seems to happen to me a great deal.

Originally Said By: i.edwards384429

  ... as a user of oodles of software I'd say WA is pretty good  

The problems only arise when pretty good is not good enough.

Originally Said By: i.edwards384429

  ... for what is essentially free support.  

Point taken ... but a person also buys stuff with the expectation that it will work, and that when it doesn't, its Creator will do something about it. Part of the implicit if not explicit contract.

Originally Said By: i.edwards384429

  Most companies wont support anyhting thats been modified or changed let alone help you to get it to work.  

You have a point, but it also depends on what kind of an analogy you want to use to describe the overall process.

Let's try this. When I purchase an "ordinary" synthesizer, I just expect it to work. All I expect to do is take it home, push this button, push that button, and get a sound that is respectably like a harp, banjo, or whatever.

However ... if I buy a MODULAR synthesizer (and I believe the analogy is valid in that that is essentially what WebAssist products are), then I am buying something that the manufacturer in fact expects me to mess around with. I can create a violin sound using FM (frequency modulation) synthesis, or subtractive synthesis, or physical modelling, or a variety of other methods. And ... I expect to create a sound that is respectably like a violin or anything else I want, no matter which method I use. I expect that, and I also expect all the modules to create that to WORK. If they don't then that is in fact the manufacturer's problem. The manufacturer's job is to make modules that are robust enough to withstand all the tweaking that I as a developer and creator of sounds can be expected to do -- and in agreeing to build a modular synthesizer, the manufacturer has signed a contract with me to support me through the variety of amazing configurations I can take his or her product through. That's because that's what a modular synthesizer is, and that's what it is supposed to do. And ... as I have been able to do using WebAssist products, you can in fact learn a very great deal about instruments, acoustic theory, and musicianship in general, playing around with modular synthesizers as opposed to the out-of-the box variety.

In this situation, I believe that to be a fairly apposite analogy.

Yes ... WebAssist is doing a pretty good job, but it seems to be up in the air right now exactly who or what the customer base is ... whether it's people who like to buy modules so they can build sounds and synthesizers of their own with the modules provided, or whether it's people who want the out-of-the box stuff. There's nothing wrong in focussing on either market. The companies who make modular synthesizers, however, are very few and far between, and it's always sad to them shifting over from one arena to another. Not unusual, but generally sad, when you prefer to tinker (and even, for a lot of the people here, make your living at it).

I've checked the above over a couple of times, and if there's anything left in it that causes any offence to anyone then please accept apologies in advance because it really wasn't intended.

Bye now.

"Junior member" may also mean I know what I'm doing and don't ask a lot of questions.

I don't know about that.

I post a lot of help and answers, but also a lot of questions ! :-)