Re: Moderators - please explain "Contributor" desi... - Page 2

goodstuff · ‎03-09-2010

I am in total agreement with OP's sentiments. What does it mean (and who in the world cares?) whether people are "Super Contributors" or "Valued Contributors", etc.? Aren't all contributions "valued"? And insteady of the cutesy kiddie "hearts", how about just giving us a "like" or "agree" button?

And please......I want to respond to specific posts and comments, not just end up at the end of a general thread.

Harpa · ‎03-10-2010

It's not the biggest of the deals, but I do wish they would take away any distinction like that.

How many times you post or not has nothing to do with anything. Also, a "valued" post is relative to each individual.

They need to put in what they had before....member since (date). Well, they made up their own date. I've been a Board participator since 2007. And many have been before me.

Or, they just allow us to provide our own classification, if we wish it.

But I would rather just see our screen names there, and member since (date).

shoekitty · ‎03-10-2010

@kittymomNC wrote:
@ChynnaBlue wrote:
In most forums, these rankings are determined solely by post count. The idea is that veteran posters know the ropes and their opinions may be based on more experience. They have nothing to do with popularity, only how frequently someone posts.

In my own experience on forums over the years, the number of posts is no indicator of wisdom or value. Some forums I've been a part of dropped those titles, but some people see them as achievement levels and really like them. I usually just ignore them and only use post count as an indicator that someone may be new and need more help than someone else and answer questions with that in mind.

I thought that too, but the post counts for long-time contributors have apparently changed on the new boards. Also, I just checked and my post count is 5,363 which is probably correct, and another poster's count is 6,401. Yet I just got a message that I "ranked up to Valued Contributor", and I was previously a Super Contributor. The person with 6,401 posts is still classified as a Super Contributor. So how could I "rank up", and she wouldn't?

It just makes no sense, and it's not needed. But probably not a lot we can do about it. And I definitely agree with your other statement that I bolded. Thanks.

Shoekitty says

I totally agree with you. I am actually offended by the ranking system, and fell like I am being "ranked" by the high school popularity team. They need to explain why. I have been on these boards since 2006, and shopping with QVC since it was CVN, and had quite a few thousand posts. I have never been poofed, or broke community standards. So why, are we all ranked, and why??

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

Oh for heaven's sake! All this hysteria over conventions that every forum I've ever seen anywhere has. The "Super" designation, as has been reported multiple times, is for # of posts. It appears that anything over 100 posts is Super, meaning they're not really designating any huge difference between almost a newbie and someone who's been here forever.

Also as has been said in multiple places, the change from "Super" to "Valued" has to do with how many hearted posts one has - either 75 or 100 hearts gets a person the "Valued" label. As in, valued by their fellow posters who gave them the hearts, not valued by the mods or QVC. That's all there is to it.

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

lolakimono · ‎03-29-2012

This is a new one, maybe beyond "Valued Contributor."

missy1 · ‎03-10-2010

The problem with these rankings are they are not a true post count, when we joined. I haven't posted much in the last few years, when I registered in 2007. Many of us had 30,000 + posts.

SHIRAZ · ‎06-27-2010

Congratulations, KittymomNC - you have ranked up again since this thread was started. "Trusted Contributor" comes after "Valued Contributor" and these 2 seem to do with the hearts being factored in.

I thought I had some of the designations figured out, but it seems more complicated than I first thought. It looks like the "Joined date" factors in with the post count. Someone who just joined recently and makes a first post is a "New Contributor" while someone who has been around a few years making their first post (or who lost all of their old posts) is an "Occasional Visitor." The next rank up is "Occasional Contributor" which appears to be around 10 posts. The next rank up to "Contributor" is at 25 posts. The next rank up is to "Frequent Contributor" which I was thinking is 100 posts, but not really sure about that as I've seen variation among different posters designations, and I think it may again be affected by the "Joined date." Guess I will find out when I cross the 100 threshhold AGAIN! "Super Contributor" seems to fall in somewhere between 223 and 416 (strictly by observation) and again may be affected by the "Joined date."

That said, I think they've created a tempest in a teapot here. A person's post should be read aand agreed with or disagreed with according to the merit of the POST, not according to the raking status of the POSTER!

"It doesn't matter if the glass is half-full or half-empty as long as you still have the rest of the bottle."

SHIRAZ · ‎06-27-2010

Oops, I missed one! There is a "Regular Contributor" somewhere between "Contributor" and "Frequent Contributor." AAAgh! Too Complicated! And does this mean that those of us that that are not "regular" contributors are somehow "irregular?"

"It doesn't matter if the glass is half-full or half-empty as long as you still have the rest of the bottle."

kittymomNC · ‎08-09-2012

Shiraz wrote:
Congratulations, KittymomNC - you have ranked up again since this thread was started. "Trusted Contributor" comes after "Valued Contributor" and these 2 seem to do with the hearts being factored in.

I thought I had some of the designations figured out, but it seems more complicated than I first thought. It looks like the "Joined date" factors in with the post count. Someone who just joined recently and makes a first post is a "New Contributor" while someone who has been around a few years making their first post (or who lost all of their old posts) is an "Occasional Visitor." The next rank up is "Occasional Contributor" which appears to be around 10 posts. The next rank up to "Contributor" is at 25 posts. The next rank up is to "Frequent Contributor" which I was thinking is 100 posts, but not really sure about that as I've seen variation among different posters designations, and I think it may again be affected by the "Joined date." Guess I will find out when I cross the 100 threshhold AGAIN! "Super Contributor" seems to fall in somewhere between 223 and 416 (strictly by observation) and again may be affected by the "Joined date."

That said, I think they've created a tempest in a teapot here. A person's post should be read aand agreed with or disagreed with according to the merit of the POST, not according to the raking status of the POSTER!

Shiraz, none of it makes any sense to anyone. I personally don't care what anyone is called, I give hearts according to what someone posts and it has nothing to do with their "so-called" rank. (Are we in the Army now?? )

I just want to be allowed to "contribute"... it works for me!

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

Shiraz wrote : "That said, I think they've created a tempest in a teapot here. A person's post should be read aand agreed with or disagreed with according to the merit of the POST, not according to the raking status of the POSTER!"

What makes you think people would NOT heart a post based solely on its content? Do you think people are blindly hearting all of the posts based on people's ranking? I would imagine no one does that - well, yes, there are exceptions but the moderators have taken care of that :-)

Life without Mexican food is no life at all