1. The rank system has been in place for a while to categories the builds and place them into the archive. Removing it is not possible.

2. The HoF is the best of the best, as voted by the general public and it is constantly being updated. Removing it, after all the hard work that Albino and Noodles did, would be basically an insult. 

So, honestly? No and no. Sorry, not good ideas! I'll wait for Al, Ely and Mr Dying to throw their input in there.

Here's my input on your suggestions:

After deliberation, I've come up with some suggestions for a few parts of the CB group. My first suggestion has to do with character building events, specifically how they're conducted.  The nature of events is too competitive because of the ranking system and it discourages new members and amateur builders from participating.  

It has been proven that competition is what drives the character building group. Without it the group becomes a dull archive with nothing to motivate people to post. It would be great if people had the drive to post builds without a rank system to climb but that is not the case. The benefits of this competition is that it drives people to create better and better builds. 

New members need not feel discouraged at all. Myself and my co hosts are always willing to sit down and help new members with their builds. Aside from the hosts there are countless builders with a lot of experience who are willing to do the same. The events are a perfect starting point for new builders. Its a lighter, easier ranking system meant to encourage them. Any first time builder who can pull off event mythic is probably off to a very good start. 

Events should be stepping stones to allow new builders to present their work alongside the work of the seasoned builders so that each piece of work is judged equally.  Having a ranking system for events pretty much turns them into character building contests without an officially named winner.  When the quality of a build is judged by the number of likes it has, it becomes an unspoken competition where people are constantly worried about how their build is doing compared to all the others.  The CB group is an inherently competitive place because of this and it creates and intimidating atmosphere for new builders. 

There are no winners in an event. Its all for fun. Again events are a good starting point for new builders for the reasons stated above, and again there's really no reason for new builders to feel intimidated with so many people willing to help them. I suppose we could meet you half way here and emphasis teaming up with inexperienced builders to show them the ropes using events. Paul got that ball rolling with our current event and we're already seeing alot of first timers paired with seasoned pros. 

My second suggestion is for the CB Hall of Fame page.  The HOF presents a handful of builds as being the objectively best builds that the site has to offer.  Why would anyone look any further than this page?  It takes attention away from the other 1000 builds (not even counting contest and event builds), and HOF builds only make up 16% of all non-contest, non-event builds.  These builds deserve recognition, of course, but their existence should not divert so much attention away from the rest of the builds the group has to offer.  

The Hall of Fame isn't meant to showcase what is objectively the best, but what is most popular. Your assertion that people wont bother to look anywhere else for builds is false. Despite the presence of the HoF, people look high and low across all ranks for builds. The HoF has not destracted from the other builds in the slightest. If that were the case we'd see all likes concentrated on those builds which isnt even close to the case. My predecessor spent month's building it, and it would be an insult to him to do away with the HoF. The HoF is hardly final. We do plan to add builds to it periodically. 

I think the HOF post actively works against the CB group.  How many builds are out there that deserve to be in the HOF, yet aren't, because people aren't looking further than the HOF?  It creates a paradox where builds that could easily make it into the HOF will never make it because the HOF is actively diverting attention away from them.  

Again we plan to add more builds to the HoF, so those builds will get their chance. And again you are absolutely wrong about the HoF taking attention away from other builds.

I feel like I should give my thoughts on this because, during my time as a CB co-host, I am the one who suggested and later implemented the events ranking system. The idea was and still is to encourage new people to participate in CB events. With that in mind, the Event Legendary rank, for example, was made to require less likes than the normal Legendary rank.

You were also the biggest influence behind the Hall of Fame as it exists today. 

Anyway, my thoughts on the matter at hand:

1. Honestly, I'd rather not open that can of worms again. While I'm not particularly fond of the event ranking system, I have to agree with Curse; the CB group benefits from a healthy sense of competition. Also, from my perspective, it doesn't really seem like the ranking system is dissuading people from entering the events.
2. A few others have voiced concerns like this about the Hall of Fame, and I acknowledge that they're valid concerns. However, it seems that the majority of the CB Group likes the HoF, and that's as good of a reason as any for me to keep it up. We also have a plan for adding new builds in, so don't worry about that.

We're going to try something a bit new here and display the Hall of Fame less prominently. Its not our aim to intimidate new builders. Our aim is the opposite in fact. We want to encourage new members to post new builds, which is why event builds are not ranked as harshly. Its also why we have a discussion page dedicated to each rank for members to seek advice. 

I was wondering if anyone has outlined a template to help people decide whether or not to "like" a build? 

This may be overthinking it, but I realized I have sort of an internal criteria / checklist I go through to make the decision. I realize everyone probably has their own set of values they are looking for, but curious if the hosts think there is an objective component that could serve as a guide? This might be especially helpful for new builders to see what it is others are looking for in a build.

For example: Variables
1. Presentation - well written, good use of artwork / pictures / screenshots
2. Originality - unique concept, glitch, tips, trick, exploit, approach or play style
3. Viability - the reproducibility of the build (is it done in such a way that makes it relatively easy to replicate)
4. Hard Work - Is it obvious the builder put in some screen time?

For me, if most of these categories are covered, I click "like." Actually, most of the time if I can tell someone at least covered numbers 1 & 4, I'll like it. Although, I will say if a build is so complex and specific, that it requires the player to get to level 60 before it gets going (3), I might not like it. 

Again, I get that everyone has their own set of subjective reasons for liking a build...just wondering if there might be a guide in place to help members and builders out? 

Thoughts?

A minor suggestion: A difficulty "level". (Either the novice-master or a numerical 1-5.) I love reading the builds and trying them out, I am just terrible (terrible) at this game. A good number of the builds ive attempted have been fun until im fighting things tougher than bandits, and I'm 100% sure this is due to my (lack of) skill.

That seems kinda pointless to me. The whole point of likes is that they're due to personal preference - if I don't like a build, I don't "like" a build, irrespective of whether it is presented well or hard work has gone into it. My only real variable is originality - if it isn't original, sorry, no like from me. 

Creating a set of guidelines seems very totalitarian to me. I don't think we should tell people what builds they can or cannot like.