First, let me say thank you to the development and "geek" staff that all worked so hard on this. I know you cared very much to put in this kind of work.

That being said, let me again say that I'm not a big fan of a leaderboard. And I truly think that it would be more transparent, and put things more in context, to properly identify staff members as such. Simply lumping them in with other "members" or "editors" isn't transparent at all, as they have the geometrically amplified value of their Good Stuff flags, which count so much more than anyone else's, as well as their power tools to re-adjust the date and re-publish for anyone they choose to in order to gain them more attention, as well as the meetings to agree on which things to flag. Plus they are paid to be here and to post; as one contributor once said, the staff editors are really paid posters. Other people here, other than one active contributor that I know of who's been paid for posts, are volunteers who are dropping in during their free time. There's no way there's any competition in the two states: employees paid for time here; visitors volunteering their participation.

All that is just how the site operates; and what is, is. However, I think that not differentiating between staff members/staff editors and others is lacking in transparency. Why bother to differentiate between Editors, Wranglers, and members and then not follow through with the complete grouping of Staff Editors?

That would be just as easy to do as grouping any other members into a comparative block. So why not? Simple to do: Staff Editors, Guest Editors.