I *like* that. Lemme see what I can do without making it any more of an expensive process than it is now.
Every system is open to abuse
Shhhh... Those who would abuse these systems typically take longer than you or I to figure out how.<g> Thought it'd take a group far larger than 5-10 to get themselves very high on our list. More like 100.
I put this one together because I'm so strongly (even vehemently) against RB's "rating system", but I feel like it's an asset to a site, from a new user's perspective, if they can quickly see who're the most prolific and widely-watched people on a site and check them out.
For example, I would've never heard of Michael Shadkin (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/subject.gsp?subjectid=51138) on SI if someone hadn't mentioned him to me. Same thing if he were on RB. If he were on IH, anyone who visited the Top_Members list would be aware of him.
I also like the idea of giving more weight to posts on stock boards than non-stock boards and think I just figured out an inexpensive (whenever I say "expensive" or "inexpensive", I'm referring to processing overhead -- I've got firebreathers, but they still have a finite amount of horsepower) way to do this. Add a new field to each board, where the moderator can select "Market" or "Non-Market", and have Matt oversee that so it doesn't get abused.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
