Been on the forum for years and not granted trust level 3?

All because i don’t login just to read the forum? Why log in if you are just reading? Why does just logging in to read increase trust level?

If that is how trust level works in these forums then it is clearly non-sensical. Please reconsider the flawed trust level system.

An analogy. What’s more likely to improve trust level with friends?

  1. Being a Facebook voyeur, silently watching their feeds.
  2. Engaging with them, in meaningful and tangible ways.

This is such a strange and entitled complaint.

It’s like when someone says, “I go to work for work, not friends.”, then is surprised when they get passed over for promotions for 2 decades.

As an example:

If you only go to work for work, and you perform just as well as others who actually interact with their colleagues, those others are more likely to get the promotion because they display camaraderie. Or even leadership.


I imagine the minimums shown for Trust Level 3 cannot be lowered, but can be raised depending on the size and type of community. I don’t know, though. :person_shrugging:


I don’t understand this. I think you have the analogy mixed up. People who go to work for work are exactly the people who get promotions. . .


If you are logged in, the forum can keep track of topics you have read or not read. It will mark new replies in topics you have read so you know the topic has new posts, and makes it easy to see what topics have been read or not read already. Not to mention, if you aren’t logged in you do not see if you have been replied to, linked to, mentioned in a post, and so on.

What is your suggestion for measuring community engagement instead? The honor system? A sign-up sheet? Lottery?

Why do you want to be TL3 in the first place, if you can’t even be bothered to sign in to the forum once in a while and read a few topics?

:point_up: That’s right, this article spells out the requirements fairly plainly:

To get to trust level 3, in the last 100 days…

  • Must have visited at least 50% of days

  • Must have replied to at least 10 different non-PM topics

  • Of topics created in the last 100 days, must have viewed 25% (capped at 500)

  • Of posts created in the last 100 days, must have read 25% (capped at 20k)

  • Must have received 20 likes, and given 30 likes.*

  • Must not have received more than 5 spam or offensive flags (with unique posts and unique users for each, confirmed by a moderator)

  • Must not have been suspended or silenced in the last 6 months

  • These likes must be across a minimum number of different users (1/5 the number), across a minimum number of different days (1/4 the number). Likes cannot be from PMs.

@Melways in your case, you need to read a lot more posts and topics, and visit more frequently if you want to become TL3.

If you visit the forum at least every other day and read ten topics each time you visit, that will get you up to TL3.


No, I don’t. I probably just need to be more detailed.

If you only go to work for work, and you perform just as well as others who actually interact with their colleagues, those others are more likely to get the promotion because they display camaraderie. Or even leadership.

Edited the first post to be more clear before someone else makes a similar comment.

like @fbodymechanic , I must also quibble with your analogy. In my industry experience, brown-nosing, a**-kissing, and backstabbing snake types “are most likely to get the promotion” over hard workers who quietly lead and let their work and positive relationships and commitment do the talking.
Those normal latter types get rewarded, too, but never as often as the snake imo. Cynically yours–:slight_smile:

1 Like

As I’m re-reading this again. This is mostly true. A little interaction is good, but I surely don’t want someone who is “part of the group” usually. Certainly not someone who goes to work for “friends.” They have a hard time enforcing things when they were someone that was on the otherside. A quiet hard-worker is much better than a people’s worker in my experience. They also tend to talk too much, and can’t lead or make decisions better for the company at the expense of “friends.”

Good business is “friendly, not friends.” It’s why it’s so hard to promote and find good people. It’s a fine line to be a good supervisor/manager. I love helping folks get there though and I’ve helped a lot of my guys get promoted over the years and do great work. I love building leaders.

That’s dissapointing. That sounds like a really toxic work environment, and likely a very poorly run company. If that’s how they promote from within, I’d start looking for another place to work.

1 Like

some of these you describe ^^ I lump with with my “snakes”. ( I am no longer in that environment–it was publishing production).
I thought you had it right in your deleted post that the levelheaded, head down, friendly-not-friends types are the best ones to promote. Also agree the @ddnn his edit did make for a better analogy for sure. I read it quickly the second time.

My edit was made before you responded. In fact, you quoted the edit.

As for both of your responses: At no point did I say, “if you go to work for friends”. I said “interact” because this is what this whole thread is about.

Unsure I did that. I wasn’t referring to that, just the great way you distinguished an outside-the-friends-group promoted leader with the one that is in too close with them. I share that observation

1 Like

I read this:

If someone is surprised for getting passed because they went to “work for work, not firends” then it would imply that people who go to work for friends would get the promotions. . .

You didn’t directly say it. It’s just implied.

It’s not worth keeping on this is just confusing and back pedaling. I’ll just go back to work lol.


I will see your back to work and will raise you with a ‘long day, burned out, can’t focus long.’ :slight_smile: Back to work!

1 Like

@ddnn I don’t understand the clown face? What is that supposed to mean? You’re all over the place, so I’m having a really hard time picking up what you’re putting down. . .

1 Like

Well, at work we don’t have friends we have colleagues or coworkers or people who we work with. The relationship with them is very different from a friendship. At work, we can choose the interaction level. I my long career what I’ve learned is minimal interaction with other colleagues is the best.

This is not true. Companies don’t give a damn about how you interact with everyone. They only or mostly care about how well you perform and manage your work. If a person is recognized as a good performer and a go-getter over another worker that person will get promoted. Unless the HR head loves brownnosers.

The difference between friends and colleagues is we don’t worry about colleagues’ personal life or their well-being. Only during the moment we might express or pretend that we care truly we don’t. Once a colleague leaves the workplace we don’t care if goes home someplace else. But with friends, we care what happens in their personal life and their well-being. In short with friends we are emotionally invested but with colleagues, we are not.

If someone is emotionally invested in their colleagues that person is going to learn the hard way that at work no one is your friend. So, it’s best to go to work only for work.

Now to OP. Don’t be so entitled. Work to get something you want and don’t expect everything to fall into your lap. There’s nothing called a free lunch.

I’m sorry you wasted all that effort because all of what you typed was completely unnecessary. I said “interact”.

The etymology of interact is rooted in the Latin word “inter,” meaning “between” or “among,” and “agere,” meaning “to act” or “to do.” This combination of words suggests a sense of action or movement between entities, whether they be people, objects, or concepts.

Some synonyms of interact include engage, communicate, collaborate, and respond. These words all convey the idea of two or more entities influencing or affecting each other in some way.

It is a very broad term. Please guys. I really can’t understand why you are all honing in on “friends/friendship/etc.” so much.

Everything you’ve all said I actually agree with either mostly or completely, but again, I didn’t say you need to be friends with your colleagues. I said you need to interact with them.

Unless you are working completely remotely and interaction is limited or non-existent, then it would be key if two people have the same performance level.

There’s a saying about assumptions. C’mon now.

This thread is about someone who’s been here for 3 years but doesn’t interact with the community often enough. As such, the system has not granted him the privileges of others who’ve been here for the same amount of time or even less.


I didn’t know browsing a forum anonymously is voyeurism ? What a twisted mindset.

What a flawed analogy, you can’t compare interaction at work which is, in general, in real life, during many hours, and sporadic, remote, interaction in a forum. And for both, you will find people who are doing what it needs to be promoted/trusted, it doesn’t always mean their interactions are sincere.

I don’t care about trust level, so I don’t complain like OP, but I also browse the forum not logged in many times.

You know what…


I’m done. Responding to what you interpret/assume vs what was actually said… :vulcan_salute:

1 Like

@ddnn it was a just bad example. And you know people (me included this time) love to criticize others when we make a mistake. Brush it off, my friend.