Many people think with the new stuff coming out, there's a chance all the prolific requirements get raised. Keep in mind, this is just for fun or what have you. So my question is, if this happens, what do you think they all would get raised to?

This is what I'm thinking would happen:
Prolific KB raised to 3.0 to 3.5 MEGS
Prolific Completed FAQs raised to 35
Prolific Reviews raised to 1.5 MEGS
Prolific Images raised to 50 images
Prolific Codes raised to 300 codes
Prolific Game Saves raised to 50 saves
Prolific Game Data raised to 30 games

So what about you guys?

Also I would ask you all not to bring up anything about what has happend, because I'd rather this not turn into a heated debate (like anyone really listens to me). :)
---
Life is full of irritations, and I'm just one of them. Get use to it and move on.

The only ones I can see increasing realistically are Codes and Game Data, as they are by far and away the easiest to obtain. Reviews may go up to a full MB and Kb to 3MB, but I can see only a few of them being raised altogether.
---
34/50 Full Circle | Y.T.W.S.R. |
The FAQer Profiles and History - http://homepages.tesco.net/vicky.reynolds1

I think FAQs should be 5MB. (And yes, I'm aware I do not have that amount myself.)

I can see prolific status for FAQs going up to 3MB.

I'm not sure if Starfighter is fully aware of what it takes to go prolific on reviews, though. 1.5MB? Even 1MB is unrealistic. If you increased the prolific requirement for reviews to 1MB, only 16 people would be on the list. 768K seems like a more reasonable mark (I didn't count and see how many would be on the list then), but I'd bet the review mark stays where it is for a while yet.

I'm not qualified to comment on the others.
---
Can't this wait till I'm old?
Can't I live while I'm young?

Actually yeah, I wouldn't mind 5MB for prolific status in FAQs. If it were to be raised to 3MB, it would just get cluttered again within a few months.
---
Y.T.W.S.R. | I.W.W.H.T.Q.
Broa | Spearman - QuantumRR | Level 4X

Dark Vortex | Posted 4/13/2006 8:28:25 PM | message detail
Actually yeah, I wouldn't mind 5MB for prolific status in FAQs. If it were to be raised to 3MB, it would just get cluttered again within a few months.

Because you're actually above 5MB? ;)

But yeah.. I think an increase to 5MB would be sufficient for this point. I know that there _are_ more than 50-60 "big" FAQ writers sitewide, but I also don't see the point in having a list with like 300 names on it. Sort of kills the point behind having a special list that you need to do a lot of work in order to get on.

Better yet, why don't we make it a Top 30 (or 50, or 64 to make tourneys well-rounded) like it was years ago? That would solve this sort of problem altogether.

---
Devin Morgan | CRP #3579
NES Completion Project: http://faqs.retronintendo.com

I'm not sure if Starfighter is fully aware of what it takes to go prolific on reviews, though. 1.5MB? Even 1MB is unrealistic.

Actually you're right on that, I'm not fully aware of the prolific reviews :)
---
Life is full of irritations, and I'm just one of them. Get use to it and move on.

I think the idea of prolificity (yes I made that word up) for codes, game data and game saves should be scrapped altogether.

I like the rest of your ideas, Mike.
---
If your boss ever gets you down, just stare at him through the prongs of a fork and imagine him in jail.
o.O Push button to turn on. Play with button to drive wild...

I actually do like the idea of being prolific in FAQs being 5 MB, though it'll definitely take me awhile to reach it.
---
The world before the fall... Delightful is the light of dawn... Noble is the heart of man...

Some of you guys forget that the prolific list (for FAQs and reviews anyway) serves two purposes. One is to reward the hard-working contributors to the site. The other is to serve as a motivating factor for new writers to continue writing.

Quite honestly, 5MB for FAQs and 1MB for reviews is quite ridiculous from the perspective of a new writer. Some of you guys have 5-6 year head starts, so maybe 5MB doesn't seem like a lot to you, but it's a lot to most people. You guys with 5MB+ of contributions absolutely deserve recognition, but someone with 3MB has still contributed considerably and deserves some recognition as well. The old 1.5MB limit lasted for quite a while, and FAQs are no easier to write now than they were then.
---
How does an Advanced Meta-Mod feature sound? Take a sample tour:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/A/Admiral1018/AMMS/AMMS_Intro.htm

I really, REALLY don't think this is necessary. I think the current levels of contributions are enough that, at any point, no matter how large the site, the contributions should be large enough for special lauds. The percentile of contributors who reach that level are already extremely low as it is; I don't see the need in making it even smaller.

It seems very likely to me that the increase of the prolific status is going to create a clubhouse of the very dedicated FAQwriters that is going to continue to expand, while most later writers will not be able to catch up in time before the next increase, thus making a 'secret society' style prolific list. I don't earnestly think this is the aim, but I think it is a highly acceptable benefit for some already on it (the attitude of the "oldies" who say of the boards, "Nobody knew is as recognizable like the old days. No big names like back then").

It is not at all my concern, because the odds I'm going to make it are low. I simply have too many hobbies as it is, and I don't think I could write FAQs quickly enough to catch up to the 2.5 before it inevitably moves up, or possibly ever. I'm simply going to write FAQs as I feel the need.

I think it likely my protest is in vain no matter what I say. In fact, I remember proposing this when it increased before.


---
No matter what they say, or what threats they make, or wars they start, always, always, always, MAKE 7UP YOURS!!

I agree with The Admiral. There is no reason to raise them.
---
Goku- Look Vegeta! People popcorn!
Vegeta- Ah! What is he on?!

Actually we can make some sort of muti-level system. 2 (or 1.5) MB being bronze prolific; 3 MB being silver prolific; 5 MB being gold prolific; 6MB being platinum prolific; 10 MB or above being diamond prolific. Extra levels can be added as long as it is needed.
---
I hate trolls

I agree with Hypro here that the multi-level system discussed ages ago (before the last Kb rise) should possibly come in. 5MB is too much, I know I would take forever to write another 2.5MB, let alone new writers to the site.
---
34/50 Full Circle | Y.T.W.S.R. |
The FAQer Profiles and History - http://homepages.tesco.net/vicky.reynolds1

I agree with The Admiral and King Kool. Setting the limit for prolificness at 5 MB for FAQs and 1.5 MB for reviews would be ridiculous and pointless. Just because there's an extra incentive to wanting become prolific doesn't mean that there aren't going to be people that are genuine and that just want to be prolific. You can argue that contributing just for the purpose of becoming a prolific contributor is wrong and goes against the real reason for writing and contributing, but I personally have no problem with someone wanting to be prolific - as long as they are turning out quality work, of course.
---
Xboxlover2«33»-New York City's #1 GameFAQs User
It's like I'm having a barbecue in my pants!

I think somewhere along the lined of 3.5 - 5 would be "write."

Enough to discourage writers who are only spewing out junk for free premium/whatever.
---
The killer, karmic©, charismatic, cryptastic©, clever Kirby!
FAQs: 24 (2003KB) | CRP: 43180 | Images: 6

The reason I believe 5 is good, is because it does separate those who contribute a lot from those who don't. Admiral, you mentioned that it would look like an obscene amount to new users. That's exactly the point.

The list is not "somewhat active" contributors, it's the "most prolific." Look how many people are on the list right now. That's far too many if you ask me.

Why is that far too many? The list had more users than that when there were 200,000 registered accounts on this site. Now there are over 3.5 million. It makes perfect sense that the size of the list increases as the user base grows more than tenfold. Sporting HOFs do not raise the bar and kick out old members as more players are added, because this is a natural occurrence as time passes. With your line of thinking, you eventually end up with something like the "Highest Karma Users List," a completely trivial list that never changes and has no meaning to a new user. Prolific status is also meant to encourage new, talented users to write more, so it should at least be attainable with 1-2 years of solid work. 5MB is ridiculous.

If 1.5 MB and less were good enough to be "prolific" for many years, why is 5MB fair now? KB are no easier to write than they have been all these years. I have no issue with the list growing longer. Create the tiered system that was described above if the disparity becomes large enough, but, at the very least, this site should show some recognition for users with 2.5MB. That is still a lot of written text by any standards.
---
How does an Advanced Meta-Mod feature sound? Take a sample tour:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/A/Admiral1018/AMMS/AMMS_Intro.htm

The only issue Johnny is from Ceej's/CNET's end... if these accounts are going to be put into practice, they would much prefer people pay for them rather than do the FAQ work to get them. Now, I personally have no issue with the prolific bar staying where it is (cause, 2.5 megs of text is a sizable chunk of work, no matter how minimal the format and such), but I think they may, thus the requirements are fairly likely to increase (in what manner, I have no idea).
---
68 FAQs for games never covered at www.GameFAQs.com.
Now with a NES FAQ for each letter of the alphabet!

Even so, if they award 500 free accounts out of the millions of users here, that's hardly an issue. The list, even at the current standards, will never grow to be even 0.01% of all users on this site.

However, and maybe this is an unpopular opinion, I also don't think premium accounts should be awarded to new prolifics. At the very least, not right away. From looking at some of the boards, I already see users asking for tips on becoming prolific as quickly as possible. CJayC has turned KB into karma and created a new incentive for filler loaded and rushed guides, which does not help anyone.

Upgrade all the current prolifics and then, maybe occasionally and at random, upgrade the new prolifics, but don't let this be known or to be expected. Users who attain prolific status should not just do so because they want elevated status or special features on a website. Afterall, how much do these writers really care about the accuracy or quality of the guides? Thaty outcome really hurts everyone, readers, writers, and CNET included.
---
How does an Advanced Meta-Mod feature sound? Take a sample tour:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/A/Admiral1018/AMMS/AMMS_Intro.htm

I agree fully with Admiral. No need to raise it.

The list is not "somewhat active" contributors, it's the "most prolific." Look how many people are on the list right now. That's far too many if you ask me.

But I'm not an "active" contributor. I am currently a "prolific" contributor. If the bar were raised to 5MB, you'd lose recognized contributors like myself, Adrenaline, Aaron Tadeo, YSF, Marshmallow, and many others who no longer are "active" users.

After all, isn't it people like Aaron and YSF that made this site what it was originally?

Many people view the Prolific list as a way to see who the best writers are, and if these writers were not on the list, their guides may be overlooked. And do we want that to happen?

We all look up to these people. Who cares if they stopped writing? That doesn't make their FAQs less valid. If the bar were raised to 5MB, do you think Marshmallow is going to return to FAQing to match that? Hardly. So, as the saying goes: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It'd almost be like redesigning the site for no valid reason.
---
CRP: 7818
“One sees clearly only with the heart. Anything essential is invisible to the eyes.”

With your line of thinking, you eventually end up with something like the "Highest Karma Users List," a completely trivial list that never changes and has no meaning to a new user.

THAT is precisely what I was thinking, but could not come up with that example. Thank you.

I think the bronze/silver/gold/platinum/unobtanium system would be satisfactory. Might even give someone something to reach for before trying to go towards a more difficult goal.
---
No matter what they say, or what threats they make, or wars they start, always, always, always, MAKE 7UP YOURS!!

Admiral/KK, what would you guys think if it was just a simple "Top 64" list? It would eliminate this whole argument about too many people being on the list, since it'll stay as a static number of people, only changing as people write more and advance in the ranks.

This is also something that's come up in my mind, in regard to KB not being any easier to write now than it was years ago. Years ago, games weren't nearly as large and indepth as they are now, so for quite a few games, a 30K FAQ is the best you're going to get (see: most NES games and back). It may not be any easier to write now, but I personally think it's easier to get a lot more of it in a shorter period of time these days. Write for a few new (RPG) games these days and you'll have a couple megs just like that.

I dunno... I just think that it's not _as_ hard to get a lot of text written for a given game now, as it was back then. There's simply too much TO write about these days, ya know? Don't take my word for it though, it was just a theory.

---
Devin Morgan | CRP #3579
NES Completion Project: http://faqs.retronintendo.com

My opinion is still da best so far
---
I hate trolls

And I think Admiral has a point that with 3+ millions registered accounts, a list of about 200 prolific writers is actually very small. Right now the chance of hitting prolific status on GameFaqs is even smaller than becoming a millionaire in MLM
---
I hate trolls

Admiral/KK, what would you guys think if it was just a simple "Top 64" list? (snip)

I think that sidesteps the issue, rather than adressing it. It's fine with me, but then the list would be in significant danger of becoming the High Karma List and being totally irrelevant (though this list would have some more jostling and shifting, and not be an infinite stalemate.) I still believe the bronze/silver/gold/aluminum system would be best.

This is also something that's come up in my mind, in regard to KB not being any easier to write now than it was years ago. Years ago, games weren't nearly as large and indepth as they are now, so for quite a few games, a 30K FAQ is the best you're going to get (see: most NES games and back). It may not be any easier to write now, but I personally think it's easier to get a lot more of it in a shorter period of time these days. Write for a few new (RPG) games these days and you'll have a couple megs just like that.

To say "just like that" is to demean the unbelievably huge act of writing for every aspect of an RPG. I understand your point, but you can make a huge guide writing all the details for Breath Of Fire III, and that came out EIGHT YEARS AGO. The games haven't changed, but the writing has.

I dunno... I just think that it's not _as_ hard to get a lot of text written for a given game now, as it was back then. There's simply too much TO write about these days, ya know? Don't take my word for it though, it was just a theory.

The art form of FAQwriting went through a maturation period sometime during the last generation, where a threadbare walkthrough wasn't good enough anymore. This was at least 6 years ago, before the PS2 came on the scene. At that point, FAQs were being written in all their full and clear glory.

But since then, nothing much has changed in the art of the writing itself. FAQs can be just as big or just as small as they were six years ago. A game for the N64 isn't that much less complex than ones for the PS2 or PS3; I believe they have the same potential for a healthy-sized guide.

Devin, you need to clarify something for me: What is "back then," exactly? What time is that? Is that the era of the NES? GameFAQs wasn't even around then. Is is the second generation, with the Genesis and SNES? Or is it the two or three years ago when the requirements were raised again? If it is the last one, what was changed fundamentally in either the hobby of FAQwriting or the texture of games that made FAQwriting more complex? I think the plateau of the games was reached around the last generation, perhaps towards the end, and the complexity of FAQwriting was reached around that same time when guides were complex and in-depth without being bloated (most of the time...)

I submit that, since the last increase, it is not the hobby that has changed, or the games, but merely the popularity of this hobby. More people are in it than before; this is undeniable. This is the only reason we have more FAQwriters on the prolific list, and this should be perfectly acceptable. The award is not lessened because more people are on the list, because they all wrote the same amount, whether it for multiple games or one large FAQ (this is excluding those who pump their FAQ with redundancies, etc.).

The change from threadbare to robust writing was a long time ago, longer than you would have us believe. The nostalgia you feel is for a time long, LONG ago, years before even I was here, and with all due respect, I submit that you, and the other older FAQwriters, are nostalgic for a past that is no longer congruent with the current culture of FAQwriting. Perhaps it never existed at all.

One final question: what IS the percent of contributors on the Prolific list? And what was it before the last increase? Does anyone know?

Back then = 10 years ago? You know, when the majority of game FAQs posted were for SNES/Genesis/PS1 and beyond. I see your point, but I still have this feeling that for some reason writing large amounts of text doesn't take as long for the current generation of games. Not speaking from my own experience in my own writings (since I'm the sort who WANTS to keep the FAQs clear and concise, but detailed).

I guess it's just that I look on the What's New pages when some new and popular game comes out, and after a couple days, people already have a couple hundred KB worth of text written for their own guides for these games. It's like "damn, and here I am thinking a BUSY day in writing was getting 50KB done". Perhaps it's also because more people seem to place this emphasis on complex formatting and ASCII/tables in every whichway, and that tends to bulk up the size of FAQs needlessly.

I don't really have specific examples of games, but bear with me here. Take a game like Zelda: A Link to the Past for the SNES (I hope you've played this so you understand where I'm coming from). On the FAQ page for a game like that, the consensus shows that FAQs are generally 100-200KB range for it. It makes sense to me since the game is relatively long and there is much to cover. But then I see FAQs appearing for the same game that are like 500KB, and I just find myself saying "what the HELL are you writing in that guide to come up with THAT much more text than was the 'standard'?" Guess that doesn't really show how writing large amounts of text is easier in the last couple years, but it really feels like a lot more people are churning out these 500KB+ FAQs again and again like they're nothing. I know I can't do _that_ much. Can you explain it?

Like I said in my first post, I didn't mean you to take what I said literally. I was just speaking out of my observations and thoughts on the matter. I can be wrong, too.

---
Devin Morgan | CRP #3579
NES Completion Project: http://faqs.retronintendo.com

Well the theory of Devin is totally defeated by the fact that the percentage of Prolific contributors on GameFaqs is much smaller than millionaires in MLM, if FAQ is indeed much easier to be composed than before our prolific list should be WAY,WAY much longer than what we have now, consider 3 million registered accounts.
---
I hate trolls

Actually, winning the lottery (specifically the Mega Millions, since that's something common to many of us here in the USA) has greater odds than being prolific here.

Taking only the prolific FAQers for example here (let's say there are 200). There are over 60,000 unique contributor pages to date (for sake of simplicity let's just say it's 60000). 200 / 60000 is well below half a percentage, BUT winning the jackpot in the lottery yields a MUCH lower number.

So, you were saying?

---
Devin Morgan | CRP #3579
NES Completion Project: http://faqs.retronintendo.com

Devin Morgan
Posted 4/15/2006 12:54:09 PM

So, you were saying?

That you were wrong. Because with the booming number of registered account, if FAQs are indeed MUCH easier to write, the prolific list should be much longer.

200 out of 3 millions really is not a big deal. If you are insisting comparing prolifics to other contributors only (in this case, you assume all others who have no contribution have no willing in contributing, and you claimed FAQs are easier to write now), well, 200 out of 60,000 is still less than 1%. The chance of becoming a millionaire in MLM is still way much greater than being prolific here, if you only compare those millionaires to active sales, according to your thinking.

---
I hate trolls

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

What would you have to do with the number of completed FAQ/Walkthroughs? It's 25 name. Bump it up to 50? That would be the same increase as the kb, but there are far fewer people with 50 FAQs.
---
The killer, karmic©, charismatic, cryptastic©, clever Kirby!
FAQs: 24 (2003KB) | CRP: 43180 | Images: 6

What I said is that nothing has to be changed. If the standard indeed needs to be changed, creating a tiered list would solve the problem. Hypro being a regular; Admiral being a bamboo prolific; Devin being a Diamond, everyone knows who is greater, while all hard-working contributors can be rewarded.
---
I hate trolls

Where are you getting 3 million from? I'm talking about people who actually CONTRIBUTE, as in having their own contributor pages (which we're only up to the 60,000 range in)...

---
Devin Morgan | CRP #3579
NES Completion Project: http://faqs.retronintendo.com

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]

Here's my thoughts on the matter.

Many of those figures that are given at the beginning of this topic could be considered realistic for raising the limit to; I'll have to shake my head to the reviews limit, though. I've written 40+ reviews (actually somewhere around the range of 100 but a majority of those are taken down or have never been submitted), and I only have around the range of 280 or so. That averages around 7 KB per review. That's usually the average length of an experienced writer's reviews, give or take a KB, and also understanding that there are some people who prefer to write shorter (3-4 KB), or Ashley Winchester-esque (12-15 KB). Divide 512 / 7, and you round off with about 73.1~ reviews. Bump that up to 74.

So then you end up with needing to write 74 reviews to get on the prolific list. That's already a substantial amount as it is. I don't know how many people here have experience writing reviews, and I realize that there are a lot of exceptions, but it requires a lot of motivation to review. With FAQs you can easily just write and wrap things up, but quality reviews require some kind of inspiration. So it's easy just to write 74 bland reviews and end up on the prolific list. But although I tend to fail at it, I tend to attempt to make my reviews interesting. And you don't just churn 74 files of inspiration out every single day. 512 KB takes time as it is, and you may also notice that there aren't really that many review prolifics, because reviews are a lot harder to write than FAQs. So maybe it can be raised if we have some sudden increase in reviewing activity and wait a year or two, but even then, only to 768, like Snow Dragon said. 1.5 MB would multiply 74 x 3, which equals 222. That figure sounds daunting even to more bland reviewers; it'll take years for most good reviewers to reach that. So... bad idea.

Now about raising the FAQ prolific list. Whether you want to raise it depends on how you look at it: is it something that's there to inspire newer writers, or something that's there to give recognition to people who have been writing for years? It's not that hard to reach 2.5 MB as it is. I wrote about 2500 KB in my first year of writing, so it takes about a year or so with someone of my speed. There are plenty of people who write far faster than I do (or more; I haven't written since December), so I understand that a year isn't an incredibly accurate figure. So as it is, 2.5 MB doesn't really seem like that much to newer writers, and it's okay for inspiration to newer writers. However, it doesn't seem like much as a recognition to people who've been writing for years anymore.

Devin's idea sounds good on paper -- create a Top 64 list, and KB itself would barely even be an issue here anymore. However, it'll have the same problem it did way back when: it'll just become a competition. Take the prolific list as it is right now; you get the exact same recognition if you have 2.5 MB or 20 MB, so it really isn't that much of a competition after you whore your way onto it in the first place. It's impossible to remove that kind of competition outside of removing it altogether, but it can be at least kept to a minimum. Plus, it risks the same problem that the Highest Karma List does now. Does that list ever change? As years go by, does it have any meaning to new users outside of recognition to people who've been here since the day the site began? Nope. However, this is a different issue; everyone only gets one karma per day, but the amount of KB that a person has depends on that person, not on the number of days a person has been here, like karma, which cannot be helped no matter what.
---
Woof. Visit board 571756.
#32454 ;; FAQs: 32 - 5650KB ;; I.W.W.H.T.Q.

I agree with the idea that's been brought up in this topic: create two prolific lists, one at 2 or 2.5 MB which is to inspire newer users and can be raised in a year or so if necessary, and one at 5 MB or thereabouts, which can also be raised when deemed necessary, which gives all due recognition to the people who have been writing for years. That way, everything works out.

That's just my two cents. I'll shut up now.
---
Woof. Visit board 571756.
#32454 ;; FAQs: 32 - 5650KB ;; I.W.W.H.T.Q.

Yeah, I guess there was one more thing to think about. Sorry for the triple post, and I promise I'll shut up after I bring this up.

Admiral said that FAQs are no easier to write now than they were then, which is true, but the fact of the matter is that there's more "traffic", if you will, as far as FAQing goes now. Back when FAQing began, could you imagine a 500 KB file for ANY game? I don't claim to have been around back then; I've only been writing for three years, one month, and five days, but that just seems a tad unrealistic to me. As gaming expands, FAQing does; back in 1996, you had Final Fantasy VI, but not really very many other huge RPGs that you could pump out a very large file for. In today's day and age, you have massive RPGs like Final Fantasy X, as an example, which is full of side quests and challenges and lists, and dozens of things to cover. While others would disagree, I can definitely imagine 1 MB of text for it. Not 2 MB, but definitely a single meg.

We've got much faster writers now, much bigger games, and also, more FAQs filled with maps, ASCII, diagrams, and such, plus more encouragement to C&P stuff multiple times in the walkthrough. Take Super Mario 64 for example. You've got two 800 KB guides for that game, and while I suppose I can't talk, because my FAQs are usually some of the largest for the games that they're for, but I can't see why you would possibly need guides that large. Back in 1996-1997 or so, I can envision people feeling guilty for that, but it's such common nature now, that you would just shrug that difference off.

So, in summary, FAQing has expanded. In the matter of raising prolific limits and weighing new users into everything, you have to take that into account.
---
Woof. Visit board 571756.
#32454 ;; FAQs: 32 - 5650KB ;; I.W.W.H.T.Q.

I agree with all of Starfighter's numbers, except reviews. .5mb is still good in that area.

---
Simpsons Video Games, ya dig? www.noiseland.net
::Elite Rogue:: {//=|RDoN|=\\}

Yeah, sorry about the reviews, as it was said before, I really know nothing about the review writing thing, so I looked at it the same way as FAQ writing. You all can ignore the Prolific Review idea if you want, and just make up whatever you want.
---
Life is full of irritations, and I'm just one of them. Get use to it and move on.

Why are we using RPGs as the yardstick for how long a FAQ should be? RPGs are full of all sorts of crap, and always have been. They hardly represent the ordinary labor to write a FAQ.

Second of all, it's far too easy to say "Just write a FAQ for FFX-2, and you got a thousand KBs!" You still need to WRITE it, which is still a monumental effort, and that includes beating every last thing in the damn game. It's a little surprising how quick we seem to be to lessen the work we do.

I can't suggest what game would be a good yardstick, but my FAQs don't seem to go beneath 100KB for a full-sized game. Somewhere north of that, I guess.
---
No matter what they say, or what threats they make, or wars they start, always, always, always, MAKE 7UP YOURS!!

Starfighters those numbers are good, raising the requirements for prolific status will make things more competative. Most people can easily enter prolific status by easy means (currently I am prolific in Images, and Codes, these two ways came with no effort. But I am about to enter prolific status under FAQ KB's within the week) by raising the requirements it will truthfully be the "best of the best"
---
Files: 58 (2464 KB) | Complete Guides: 21 | Images: 27 | Reviews: 4 (13 KB) | Codes: 284 | Game Data: 1

Gbness - I think I may have not clarified this point, so I will now. I suggested that maybe we have a Top 64 list or something to that effect. I'm sure that implies it'll be an actual numbered list. What if we just list the top 64 in alphabetical order? There wouldn't be as much competition except for those clamoring to get onto and/or stay on the list if they're right at the threshold. I think it could work. Who really cares if it's just a sidestep; as long as it solves the argument, the methods used shouldn't be an issue, IMO.

---
Devin Morgan | CRP #3579
NES Completion Project: http://faqs.retronintendo.com

KK - It was for the sake of an example, dude. It's not _the_ standard. I just couldn't come up with a better way of expressing my thoughts in that regard.

---
Devin Morgan | CRP #3579
NES Completion Project: http://faqs.retronintendo.com

That wasn't so much towards you. I'm really just wondering what the average FAQ size is.
---
No matter what they say, or what threats they make, or wars they start, always, always, always, MAKE 7UP YOURS!!