Might want to wait a few days in-between though, not sure how often it's updated, lol

Unfortunately, Paypal's exchange rate rules out my planned strategy of using $0.01 increments to find the exact border. Is gold the highest?

The highest is checkerboard, but you can't put a price on it : )

It's not the highest donator marker unless you bill your time spent moderating as a donation.

From the other thread, Kestas said: "In general we wont disclose the thresholds though, because its not paying for the marker the marker is just to indicate you donated (e.g. marker levels may change again, and anyone who felt they had paid for that marker would be annoyed)"

@Alderian (and indirectly kestas)...

that's a good reason to not have marker levels at all...

...says the one who hasn't donated...yet. :)

like in the Olympics, gold, silver and bronze are all worthy of praise ... but the checkerboard is more like the "winner" at the Indy 500, and let it not be said that the mods aren't "weiners" ...

Platinum is worth more... i'm guessing you have to donate a few devs to get there...

These are my thoughts on donation markers (these are just suggestions, so please don't flame me. Kestas can do whatever he wants)
1. The markers have the potential to help generate revenue for the site
2. Thresholds should be disclosed as this will increase the likelihood of people donating in order to make it to the next level.
3. Some sort of time limit should be considered to encourage people to donate every year.

There have been a few comments that seem to have had a slightly snarky tone to them, some how implying that the markers don't value the contribution of mods and developers. Or at least that is how I have read it. Of course mods and developers are valued. But it was Kestas who thought of the markers. Nobody originally asked for them. Most donated before Kestas said he would put them on the site. But they are here now and they have a simple purpose - to thank people for donations. Nothing more nothing less.

@Spyman (and Kestas): Your points 1 and 3 are a good idea. Point 2 isn't, it'll only cause arguments. How about: Bronze - Donated sometime. Silver - donated in the last 3 years. Gold - donated in the last 12 months?

I'm just wondering how long it'll be before someone creates a game for Gold donators only...

I would suggest making the colors based on average donation per year so if the donation goes below the threshold, you drop a color, but everyone who donates will always be at least a bronze.

I donated before there was a suggestion of markers, but now that I have one, I want to donate to the next level. I don't see a privacy issue for myself with disclosing the thresholds, but I suggest, at risk of needlessly complicating a simple system, an "undisclosed" marker for those who have donated but do not wish to disclose their bracket, and also an option to not show any marker (or to show it only on the profile page).

I definitely do think making a game out of it would get you more money, even if it's only mine.

I think you people are putting way too much thought into it :P

Give a few bucks, if you can afford more, give a few more.

spyman i dont think anyone was saying whatever you thought they were saying lol

You're right Thucy. I read a comment in an earlier thread the wrong way I think.

Too much thought? I think supporting the community should be something openly encouraged instead of an undocumented afterthought. It's fun for me and probably others, and it generates revenue for the site.

Perhaps the top X% donators get gold, top Y% get silver and top Z% get bronze (and perhaps some form of acknowledgement to everyone who has donated something)? That way you are encouraged to continue donating to stay gold, and the percentages could be disclosed fairly openly, as it wouldn't reveal how much is required. (Unless they start interrogating other members)