topic Re: A Question for Beth-QVC in Q Talk

A Question for Beth-QVC

Lovethesea — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 05:30:04 GMT

@BeTh-QVC I am asking out of curiosity, if a thread is still available on the forums site even though it may have been originated a few years ago, why then isn't it left to stand currently if, as you say, "bumped" up?

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

GingerPeach — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:18:54 GMT

I didn't understand this either.

Isn't "bump" just typing "bump" into the body of a post so a thread moves to the top?

This one was not like that at all. Here, no one simply typed "bump." In this one, someone actually had a legitimate reason to continue the thread. It could have started anytime and would have had the same responses and questions and comments.

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

June222 — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:23:57 GMT

So now we can not discuss vendor's products anymore?? If WEN clogs someone's drains, it is against QVC board policies to mention that now?? SERIOUSLY??????

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

ValuSkr — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:27:14 GMT

Does Wen really clog drains?

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

Deanie — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 14:44:16 GMT

I have used WEN for years, and I do color my hair. My husband was complaing about the hair in the drain. However, I recently changed my hair salons after many, many years. I found the salon that I had been using for years changed their focus and was no longer client centered. I was also concerned about the products being used since my stylist had informed my about the changes. They had also recently lost a significant number of stylists all at once to go to a competing salon. These were "red flags" and I chose to pay attention. Glad that I did. Be that as it may, the result is that I made the change. Voila, minimal hair loss at this salon. The new salon is using a new hair color product that has oil in it and my hair has never looked so good. Plus, very little hair loss in the drain. I gues the gest of this story is that it was not the WEN product casuing my hair loss it was MY SALON. Can you imagine?

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

bebe777 — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:39:43 GMT

I know this thread well, and I'm very glad that it's finally gone.

Over the years, this particular thread has been dragged up again and again... generally during the Wen show visits... which is when it would have the most impact and incite the maximum number fo folks.

It always amazed me how this thread could remain dormant and then be dragged back up 6 weeks, two months, four months later just in time for Chaz Dean's Wen hair care visits. And the folks draggin this thread up were never Wen users. Frequently they were one post wonders.

My guess is that deleting this thread (finally!) wasn't a case of not permitting free speech, but an act of compassion: in particular, this thread was intentionaly used to create havoc and upset folks. -- With regard to "free speech", of course, anyone can create a new anti-Wen thread at any time. I doubt there's any intent to stop that (and that's fine with me).

There are other provocative Wen threads out there... but this one was probably the worst.

@Beth-QVC, thank you so much for deleting this thread.

-- bebe, a Wen user for 6 years... without a single clogged drain in that time

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

Lovethesea — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 17:03:03 GMT

My interest in originating this discussion was about a thread being "removed by QVC because it is bumped from several years ago." I used this particular example, "The plumber came yesterday-WEN clogged our pipes..." only because it was available--NOT because I am interested in WEN clogging pipes!

My question to Beth-QVC is:

That WEN is part of the equation is purely incidental.

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

HappyDaze — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 17:10:58 GMT

It doesn't matter- the same one hit wonders or the posters that post about the same thing ad nauseum will simply just start new threads of the same theme. But it is really ridiculous when 3+ year old threads are somehow "found" and replied upon rather than a new post started. I am talking about the ones where the last post was 3+ years, not even including when the original post was written because who takes the time to try to find 3+ old threads so they can reply on it, especialliy if they are a "new" poster when it would be so much easier to just, say, start a post? , I think we all know why posters do this. Let's not feign innocence. And I don't care what or who the threads are about.

And it is intersting that the title of this thread changed. lol.

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

ChynnaBlue — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 17:48:31 GMT

This is only a guess from many years of experience across multuple forums. Sometimes people bring back very old posts as a nuissance. We've experienced it here many times where someone would log on late at night and resurrect multiple threads from years ago. (On some other forums it's called thread nercromancy or necroposting.) You can delete the post that someone added to bring the thread back from the dead, but that still leaves the very old post(s) on the front page because the front page sorts by most recent posting. It also leaves a weird gap because the post that brought the thread back is gone, but all new posts after that one remain. The only way to get the thread off the home page is to either let it die again (which can take hours or weeks) or to delete it. There is no other way to move it back to the end where it belongs.

Many forum mods on various forums end up deleting necromanced posts for this reason.

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

TuesdayTaylor — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:02:49 GMT

That post was bumped purely to make trouble and every single one of you questioners knows it. Thank heavens Beth finally removed it. These one-post wonders and bumpers need to realize that QVC can see the IP addresses of posters. They can see who's making up new names and who's causing trouble. Let the mods do their jobs, they know what they're doing. I seriously hope this "question" to Beth gets removed because all it's doing is rehasing the same bumped post that's been deleted. Just keeping the trouble going.

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

GingerPeach — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:23:01 GMT

OK, many of you have experience with trouble-making posters. That's all well and good. I understand that.

But still the question of "bump" arises. Isn't "bumping" simply typing "bump" into a thread so it moves up?

What if someone has a legitimate and similar question?

I have noticed that often when typing a title to begin a new thread, title options are provided by the software. So perhaps that new poster simply used one of those options without realizing the option was from an older thread. And if those options are available, why then is QVC removing the new threads that arise from QVC's making available those options (i.e., old titles)?

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

HappyDaze — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:58:33 GMT

@GingerPeach wrote:
OK, many of you have experience with trouble-making posters. That's all well and good. I understand that.

But still the question of "bump" arises. Isn't "bumping" simply typing "bump" into a thread so it moves up?

What if someone has a legitimate and similar question?

I have noticed that often when typing a title to begin a new thread, title options are provided by the software. So perhaps that new poster simply used one of those options without realizing the option was from an older thread. And if those options are available, why then is QVC removing the new threads that arise from QVC's making available those options (i.e., old titles)?

In this particular case, the "new" poster posted the same thing on two different older threads. One which is over 3 years old, the other was 3 1/2 years old so although what you mention could be the case on some of the other threads, why would the poster post it on two different older threads? I think we both can concede that sometimes the intentions are less than innocent but some may well be legit. No? I think the mods are just trying to strike a balance between the pot stirring and the legitimate posts.

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

GingerPeach — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 20:00:35 GMT

I see. Thanks, @HappyDaze, for explaining about the recurring habits of that poster.

I do wonder about other, authentic "brand-new" posters who might run into the "title options" and inadvertently latch onto an old thread.

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

HappyDaze — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 20:02:42 GMT

@GingerPeach wrote:
I see. Thanks, @HappyDaze, for explaining about the recurring habits of that poster.

I do wonder about other, authentic "brand-new" posters who might run into the "title options" and inadvertently latch onto an old thread.

I agree, I am sure there are some legit ones too because of what you stated about titles of threads popping up when you type in a title. I actually don't really like that feature- not sure why we need to have other titles popping up when we are trying to write our own post?

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

GingerPeach — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 20:27:04 GMT

"I actually don't really like that feature- not sure why we need to have other titles popping up when we are trying to write our own post?"

I totally agree with your statement, @HappyDaze I find it annoying.

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

Drythe — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 22:02:58 GMT

Feigned innocence and disingenuousness aside, many of us recognize the nic's of posters who frequently start, or revive negative WEN and Chaz threads during or before his Q appearances.

Thank you @Beth-QVC.

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

stevieb — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 23:23:10 GMT

@GingerPeach wrote:
"I actually don't really like that feature- not sure why we need to have other titles popping up when we are trying to write our own post?"

I totally agree with your statement, @HappyDaze I find it annoying.

I like the feature simply because when I'm searching for a specific post it generally proves to be much more helpful than the old search feature ever was. Sometimes, I'll see a title and want to go back and read it, but find I don't recall where I saw it. This allows me to try a few key words and locate it. Of course, like anything else, it can be used for good or not so good...

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

HappyDaze — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 02:25:45 GMT

@stevieb wrote:
@GingerPeach wrote:
"I actually don't really like that feature- not sure why we need to have other titles popping up when we are trying to write our own post?"

I totally agree with your statement, @HappyDaze I find it annoying.
I like the feature simply because when I'm searching for a specific post it generally proves to be much more helpful than the old search feature ever was. Sometimes, I'll see a title and want to go back and read it, but find I don't recall where I saw it. This allows me to try a few key words and locate it. Of course, like anything else, it can be used for good or not so good...

Oh I like that feature in the "search" box but not when it does it in the Title box when you are starting a new post. Having it try to autofill the title post is odd.

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

stevieb — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 02:35:46 GMT

@HappyDaze wrote:
@stevieb wrote:
@GingerPeach wrote:
"I actually don't really like that feature- not sure why we need to have other titles popping up when we are trying to write our own post?"

I totally agree with your statement, @HappyDaze I find it annoying.
I like the feature simply because when I'm searching for a specific post it generally proves to be much more helpful than the old search feature ever was. Sometimes, I'll see a title and want to go back and read it, but find I don't recall where I saw it. This allows me to try a few key words and locate it. Of course, like anything else, it can be used for good or not so good...

Oh I like that feature in the "search" box but not when it does it in the Title box when you are starting a new post. Having it try to autofill the title post is odd.

I can see where it would be... I'm not starting many threads these days, so I suppose I hadn't even noticed it was doing that... Yes, the search box is what I appreciate...

Re: A Question for Beth-QVC

GingerPeach — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 03:11:49 GMT

@HappyDaze wrote:
@stevieb wrote:
@GingerPeach wrote:
"I actually don't really like that feature- not sure why we need to have other titles popping up when we are trying to write our own post?"

I totally agree with your statement, @HappyDaze I find it annoying.
I like the feature simply because when I'm searching for a specific post it generally proves to be much more helpful than the old search feature ever was. Sometimes, I'll see a title and want to go back and read it, but find I don't recall where I saw it. This allows me to try a few key words and locate it. Of course, like anything else, it can be used for good or not so good...

Oh I like that feature in the "search" box but not when it does it in the Title box when you are starting a new post. Having it try to autofill the title post is odd.

Exactly, search box not thread title.