First of a group of articles about relevance, and following this one on trust this article focuses on one way to reassure the reader of a blog.

As can be seen in many forums for developers: next to the name of the member, we read his seniority ( "member since ..."), and the number of contributions he has made to the community.

What is this information?

Incidentally, it stimulates contributors, who can use this information as a way to "make a race" with their colleagues. This contribution race improves the vitality of a forum.

This seniority information is primarily intended to the reader, in order to give an indication of the interest of the comment that he is reading. The assumption behind this is that the older the member, the more he knows, and the more he contributes, the more interesting.

In the context of tech websites, seniority can have meaning. In science, everything is changing so fast that we must keep up-to-date, so if you’ve kept up-to-date for a long time, obviously, you are a precursor, and thus, inevitably, you are worth of serious consideration.
But all sectors are not as innovative, and you don’t always look for early adopters. Often, therefore, seniority is not very relevant.

The number of contributions proves that the member shares its knowledge. It gives him an image cool, not selfish guy. It's rewarding for him. But for the reader, what conclusions can be make?
All he can say is "this guy provides the content to the community.

This content is interesting? Relevant? Even simply adapted? The number of contributions does not say this. The number of contributions is only the propensity of a member to provide information. A graphomaniac (personal translation of the french "graphomane", someone who has a desperate need to write) would have a high score in this system.

Is this what you want to see?