Taylor, thanks for getting us back on track. I think I speak for all us when I say that we really want to wrap this up soon.
Like Brian and Taylor, I really like the simplicity of the 5-star system. The problem I see with it is that the steps from 0-2000 are, by necessity, large ones. Say, someone has reached 100 records and earned 2 stars. To earn the third star, he'd have to reach 500, i.e., 400 additional records. This will seem out of reach for most, and they won't be motivated to try. The same logic applies at any of the other stages, e.g, between star 1 and 2. A 5-star system simply is not differentiated enough to dangle the next star in front of people, so to speak. I think this is what Jonathan has been trying to tell us all along.
Jonathan's 8-star system would fix the problem of differentiation. But, like others, I feel that it is visually unappealing. If put the stars for each category in two rows, some people would end up with a 6 rows of stars. Frankly, that's just way too many stars to digest for anyone, and I fear they will become meaningless.
To keep the things clear and simple and at the same time have enough differentiation, the best system we have discussed so far is Taylor's white-bronze-silver-gold star system. It keeps the number of stars shown on the screen to just 4 per row, and the different colors allow for the steps to be small enough to be motivating.
Therefore, I suggest that we go with Taylor's basic system. If and when we have agreed to that, we could then tweak the numbers based on our prior discussions. In fact, I'd suggest that we get rid of white stars and work with just three colors, bronze, silver and gold. That should give us plenty of differentiation, as it would give us 12 achievement levels per category (as opposed to only in 5 in Brian's system and 8 in Jonathan's).
Well, whatdaya think?