Hi Nino, all <div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Having "false-positives" ist bad, of course. But IMO false-negatives are worse :-/ </blockquote><div> Couldn't agree more :) There were at least 3 guys that were particularly helpful on the second Bug Hunting Session while I was online (probably there were many more). I thanked them publicly on IRC (not the same as a BoD member doing it but still...) but then there wasn't even a nice Thank you post on the TDF blog like for BHS 1... I have already commented with Cor that this was really bad. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> So I'd still vote for some type of 'credit points' like Yifan brought in. In my eyes, it's enough summing them up alltogether, but we also could consider to differentiate. But this would end up in something like PersonX(12/3/23/8) which I'd consider rather ugly. </blockquote></div> That is ugly. I think that rather than showing counts (although it could be sorted by counts) it would be much nicer to have something like Rainer Bielefeld (Since Oct 2011) or if someone stopped contributing for over a month Rainer Bielefeld (Between Oct 2011 and Dec 2011) Eventually people that stopped contributing for e.g. 2 months would be moved to a linked "Former contributers" (or something similar) page as new more active people would be more visible. If they returned the original date would show up (of course the break would count as being active but it would be petty to reset the starting date...) This would put more weight into being active rather than a rat race to have more points over time... Top contributors would still show on top but without showing the numbers. Just my 2 (non-dev) cents