15

On the newly redesigned Badge page (A+), there are sub-groups under the major groups. For example, the Participation Badges group has related badges Commentator and Pundit sub-grouped, and Quorum and Convention sub-grouped.

I am of the opinion at least 1 of the following additional sub-groupings should be made:

Question Group

  • Student & Scholar
  • Investor & Altruist
  • Promoter & Benefactor
    • Alternately, one sub-group of Investor, Altruist, Promoter & Benefactor

Answer Group

  • Teacher, Enlightened, Guru
  • Consider moving Generalist to Tag Badges Group or the bottom of the Answer Group if Tag Badges is moved immediately below Answer Group.

Participation Group

  • Talkative & Outspoken
  • Caucus & Constituent
  • Precognitive & Beta

Tag Badges

Move this group to either the bottom of all groups or below the Answer Group. Its current placement here creates a weird artificial barrier, especially with users who have no Tag Badges.

Moderation Group

  • Informed & Analytical
  • Taxonomist & Synonymizer
  • Critic & Supporter
  • Disciplined & Peer Pressure
  • Suffrage, Vox Populi & Civic Duty
    • Alternately, one sub-group of Critic, Supporter, Suffrage, Vox Populi & Civic Duty
  • add Cleanup and Organizer to the Editor sub-group
  • add Citizen Patrol to the Deputy sub-group

NOTE: Since this is now status-completed, but only a select portion was completed, the rest of the request has been broken into 2 additional questions:

  1. Create Badge Sub-Groupings based on Sibling relations
  2. Move the position of the Tag Badge Group
Improve this question
3
  • 3
    This is exactly what I was wondering :P
    – Doorknob
    Commented Jun 18, 2013 at 22:17
  • I think a similar request, badge-chaining, is status-planned
    – asheeshr
    Commented Jun 19, 2013 at 2:01
  • @AsheeshR - I was unable to find the specific request you mention.
    – JoshDM
    Commented Jun 19, 2013 at 13:07

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

The sub-groups that are currently live on the new badges page are only for badges that build off of each other - they are meant to show that you can earn additional badges if you progress in the same activity that earned you the bronze badge. There are a few in your suggestions that make sense (talkative and outspoken, for example), but some of the groupings you propose don't actually build off of each other (scholar and student, for example - they're both bronze badges, and there is no particular order of events you must follow to earn them both).

Additional combinations might make sense if they follow the existing rationale behind the sub-groups (i.e., show progression), but we shouldn't have two types of groupings with different logic behind each.

Improve this answer
10
  • Following the sub-group "build off of each other" logic, we have: Talkative and Outspoken; Citizen Patrol, Deputy and Marshal; Suffrage and Vox Populi. Who can update the content of the page?
    – Tiago Sippert
    Commented Jun 21, 2013 at 16:30
  • 1
    That's not accurate for Revival and Necromancer: you can't progress from the first to the second with the same answer, and you can earn Necromancer without earning revival (if your answer was not the first). So they don't exactly build off of each other, but still make sense to be visually grouped together.
    – bfavaretto
    Commented Jun 21, 2013 at 17:27
  • Do note I requested at least one of the proposed groupings; not necessarily all of them, and I expect the comment area to be a mild debate as to which are worthy. While I recognize the initial volley of sub-groupings focused on the low-picked fruit of progression, other sub-groupings of perceived progression exist (of which Revival/Necromancer belongs) and should be grouped. For example, Disciplined & Peer Pressure (both Bronze) are polar opposites, but from a "scoring" observation, which is what the Badges! reward system is, they are obvious siblings and should be grouped as such.
    – JoshDM
    Commented Jun 21, 2013 at 19:57
  • 2
    For the reasons stated by Laura, we're going to group your three suggestions from the participation group. We can't quite make the case that the rest of them make sense as a progression.
    – Jeremy T StaffMod
    Commented Jun 25, 2013 at 0:01
  • Why restrict to progression when siblings are obvious?
    – JoshDM
    Commented Jun 26, 2013 at 14:27
  • Part of the reason I requested this is also to aid the sorting of the badges; right now they are alphabetic, which is OK except the groups flow into the middle of the alphabetic lists, which creates a break in alpha flow and generates visually unappealing lone badges.
    – JoshDM
    Commented Jun 28, 2013 at 18:32
  • @JeremyTunnell - Constable and Sheriff are not progression, yet they are grouped.
    – JoshDM
    Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 15:20
  • 1
    @JoshDM Unfortunately, we have so many different kinds of badges that it is virtually impossible to hold to a strict standard of grouping. You're completely correct, but I would also say that these should be grouped. We're basically down to making decisions on a case-by-case basis. So the general rule is progression, but sometimes we break it on the margin.
    – Jeremy T StaffMod
    Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 15:29
  • While you wrote that, I wrote another question because I once read here that proposing another question and chancing that it will be flagged duplicate rather than just eating one's own tail is preferred.
    – JoshDM
    Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 16:09
  • @JeremyTunnell - added links to two other questions which handle the unimplemented portions of this now status-completed question.
    – JoshDM
    Commented Jul 18, 2013 at 16:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .