Used stamps exchanges.

I would suggest a new way of ranking our members.
It would be ranked by the number of stars received.
If two members had the same number of stars, one would have been ranked higher who sent a small number of lots.
This, in my opinion, would have a more realistic order

In the ranking are listed only the members that have been active in the last year. So, after a year of inactivity they wont appear in the ranking until they log in again.

The ranking is ordered only by the number of sent (and registered) letters. I will add in the future the option to also order this list by the other columns.

If there must be a "ranking", I'd like to add another way of organizing the chart based on latest activity. There had been one "deleted member" who had been much active in the beginning, but then he/she quit: for months, this member was at the top of the ranking despite not having any activity. Independently on their history of swaps, actively swapping members will appear frequently on the head of the list, and this may be an incentive to do swaps (which is why we are here).

A third way of ranking is also possible: Rank according to the average number of stars given. It would perhaps be too revealing, but it might also give some a hint that their quality of selections should be improved.

Hi, I am nr.19 :)
It seems that lots sent is counted first, then lots received and last received stars.
Actually I am not interested in my ranking. The more important Thing should be exchanging stamps. But if there "must" be a ranking, in my opinion the received stars should be respected.

It's totally illogical:
position 17 Stars 482
position 18 Stars 445
position19 Stars 510
position 20 Stars 499
position 21 Stars 485
position 22 Stars 414
position 23 Stars 467
Does it seem appropriate for someone to be ranked higher than you, but it has less stars than you?

It's totally illogical:
position stars
17 482
18 445
19 510
20 499
21 485
22 414
23 467
Does it seem appropriate for someone to be ranked higher than you, but it has less stars than you?

It is not.

Because I might give every received lot a vote of one star in the hope that my ranking would be higher.
The way it is now is fine for me.
But I do not understand the second parameter (first is lots sent, second is:
lots received? number of stars received? last logged in?).