...I never said that those who had most posts were the most helpful...
...in the old MFIF there was a pretty good correlation between the number of posts and "usefulness" of the poster.
You also implicitly acknowledge that other forums rank the numbers; so did the MFIF contrary to what you say.
That's simply incorrect. "To rank" means to "give (someone or something) a rank or place within a grading system"
(New Oxford American Dictionary). As I said earlier, we never did anything of the kind at MFIF.
(If, on the other hand, all you mean by "rank" is "show each poster's post count, thereby allowing readers to infer a correlation between number of posts and 'usefulness,'" then you're proving my point: when we
do show post counts, (at least some) folks
do infer a correlation between number of posts and 'usefulness'—that's
exactly the phenomenon I'd like to prevent.)
Frankly, I don't understand why you started to pick on me in this rather obvious matter.
First, there's no need for a persecution complex. You made a couple of posts lauding people for reaching 100 posts. I took that as an opportunity to raise an issue which was never satisfactorily resolved at MFIF: the tendency of the post-counting system to confer the mantle of authoritativeness on the most frequent posters.
But more importantly: you feel free to offer your opinion in matters such as these, and that's great! Should I not feel free to differ with what you say when I don't share your opinion? The fact that I don't drop it when your reply doesn't address what I'm concerned about isn't "picking on you."
