topic Re: UP IN THE RANKS in Community Chat

UP IN THE RANKS

Lindsays Grandma — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 20:49:20 GMT

Last night while I was typing a notice appeared advising me I have been promoted from Respected Contributor to Trusted Contributor. To be honest I don't pay much attention to that, I didn't even remember what I had been promoted from!!!

If anyone has the list showing the ranks will you please post it here, or let me know how I can find one, I would appreciate it.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

Beth-QVC — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 20:55:57 GMT

This post has been removed by QVC because it is discourteous

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

Lipstickdiva — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 21:00:19 GMT

Just fyi but you are still showing as respected contributor under your name.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

dooBdoo — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 22:38:24 GMT

Hi, @Lindsays Grandma! I've never seen an official listing posted by the QVC Social Team (doesn't mean they didn't provide it... just haven't seen it, myself). This is one of the listings other posters have found on other websites that seem to use a similar "title" system and it appears to coincide with some of the steps we see here.

Occasional Contributor
Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Regular Contributor
Super Contributor
Valued Contributor
Trusted Contributor
Respected Contributor

Esteemed Contributor

Honored Contributor
Outstanding Contributor
Acclaimed Contributor
Exalted Contributor

On this forum I think we can safely say the rankings don't go beyond "Honored" (one "Honored" poster has over 63,000 posts so far) and they're based solely on the number of posts. So, they're relatively meaningless other than showing we've been busy posting a lot. Personally, I wish they'd remove the so-called "ranking" because it constantly causes confusion and even bothers some people.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

Lindsays Grandma — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 22:10:39 GMT

Looking at my notifications there are two regarding ranks. One says moved up to Trusted and the other says moved up to Respected. I have been here ten years and never signed on for a title so whatever they assign me is what it is.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

Mz iMac — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 22:34:06 GMT

"I have been promoted from Respected Contributor to Trusted Contributor."

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

BirkiLady — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 22:40:11 GMT

dooBdoo - Also received a similar "notice" a few weeks ago and had no idea what it meant. Couldn't find any information about a list on QVC, which seemed strange. Unlike Lindsay's Grandma, it didn't occur to me to ask here. Why didn't I think of that?

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

dooBdoo — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 22:44:26 GMT

BirkiLady wrote:
dooBdoo - Also received a similar "notice" a few weeks ago and had no idea what it meant. Couldn't find any information about a list on QVC, which seemed strange. Unlike Lindsay's Grandma, it didn't occur to me to ask here. Why didn't I think of that?

@BirkiLady, Alas, posting even the simplest of questions here can be perilous. It's one reason some of us don't start many threads, and others don't post at all anymore. It's the price we pay for the opportunity to post as we choose -- within the limitations of the standards and guidelines -- and I do understand that.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

BirkiLady — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 22:57:24 GMT

@dooBdoo - We are a country of free speech. What happened to "No question is a dumb question?" Grade schoolers are taught that! Why would adults treat others with less courtesy? Seems some manners need to be instilled in this forum. Or, perhaps the offending people need to be turned into Beth@QVC. I hear she "poofs" comments!

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

Cakers3 — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:18:40 GMT

@dooBdoo wrote:

Hi, @Lindsays Grandma! I've never seen an official listing posted by the QVC Social Team (doesn't mean they didn't provide it... just haven't seen it, myself). This is one of the listings other posters have found on other websites that seem to use a similar "title" system and it appears to coincide with some of the steps we see here.

Occasional Contributor
Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Regular Contributor
Super Contributor
Valued Contributor
Trusted Contributor
Respected Contributor
Esteemed Contributor
Honored Contributor
Outstanding Contributor
Acclaimed Contributor
Exalted Contributor

On this forum I think we can safely say the rankings don't go beyond "Honored" (one "Honored" poster has over 63,000 posts so far) and they're based solely on the number of posts. So, they're relatively meaningless other than showing we've been busy posting a lot. Personally, I wish they'd remove the so-called "ranking" because it constantly causes confusion and even bothers some people.

@dooBdooIsn't that the truth. Before the ranks were instituted, we always had posters being bashed for their count numbers; be it old-timers or a poor newbie being accused of being a troll because they only had a few posts.

I've often wondered what the magic number is for posts; too many and you have no life. Too little and you are just a pot-stirring troll.

It's like Goldilocks and the Three Bears-what is too little, too much, and what is just right. LOL

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

SahmIam — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:17:15 GMT

"Exalted Contributor" makes me chuckle. I have no idea as to why, lol.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

SilleeMee — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:41:50 GMT

The ranks here kind of remind me of the colored stars they give you on eBay, only more levels here.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

stuyvesant — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:44:28 GMT

@SilleeMee wrote:
The ranks here kind of remind me of the colored stars they give you on eBay, only more levels here.

TripAdvisor does that too. I get emails from them all the time that I'm only two reviews or so away from getting the next level badge. There's no incentive that I can discover other than the badge itself.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

QueenDanceALot — Sat, 30 Sep 2017 00:00:58 GMT

I'm only "Esteemed" because I've been here since dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

Lindsays Grandma — Sat, 30 Sep 2017 01:40:41 GMT

dooBdoo, I agree with you regarding your wish they would remove the so-called "ranking", which is based solely on a number of posts. As an example, a poster may have 6,000 posts and be considered "Esteemed" while someone who has 200 posts is considered "Occasional". How is that fair? Someone has a lot of time on their hands and spends it on the boards. The one with the low amount has two jobs, or a sick relative they care for, no time to be here as much as they would like to. Again, how is it fair to use words like Honored, Outstanding, Frequent, Valued, Super, Regular, Respected, Trusted, Exalted, and on and on, based on a number of posts? To discriminate that way just doesn't make sense to me. We are not in a contest here, no one is better or worse than the next one based on how often we post. The moderators may not like what I just wrote but I am not offending or being rude to anyone, I am merely stating my opinion, wrong or right, depending on the status of the reader.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

chrystaltree — Sat, 30 Sep 2017 02:57:37 GMT

...just checking

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

dooBdoo — Sat, 30 Sep 2017 03:26:00 GMT

Lindsays Grandma wrote:
dooBdoo, I agree with you regarding your wish they would remove the so-called "ranking", which is based solely on a number of posts. As an example, a poster may have 6,000 posts and be considered "Esteemed" while someone who has 200 posts is considered "Occasional". How is that fair? Someone has a lot of time on their hands and spends it on the boards. The one with the low amount has two jobs, or a sick relative they care for, no time to be here as much as they would like to. Again, how is it fair to use words like Honored, Outstanding, Frequent, Valued, Super, Regular, Respected, Trusted, Exalted, and on and on, based on a number of posts? To discriminate that way just doesn't make sense to me. We are not in a contest here, no one is better or worse than the next one based on how often we post. The moderators may not like what I just wrote but I am not offending or being rude to anyone, I am merely stating my opinion, wrong or right, depending on the status of the reader.

@Lindsays Grandma, The ranking "titles" aren't at all meaningful. This isn't the fault or responsibility of the moderators. This is pre-programmed "canned" forum software designed and managed by the Lithium web hosting service. On other sites with more sophisticated versions of the software they do use such things as the value of contributions by posters and other factors to make such titles at least somewhat meaningful, but here it's just a tally of post counts which could be nothing but copy-and-paste images, taking only minutes to post. There's not really a fair correlation between number of posts and judging someone's lifestyle or the value of, or reasons for, their time spent here. My opinion is that QVC purchased the least expensive version of this software and provides only the most basic support for it -- the moderators can convey our concerns and suggestions but they're not the tech support staff. Just my opinion, there's certainly nothing wrong with discussing it but I don't think it's important in the scheme of things. I'd appreciate it if they'd devote resources to making the website more secure and far less prone to daily, major technical problems.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

sunshine45 — Sat, 30 Sep 2017 07:18:49 GMT

@Lindsays Grandma wrote:
dooBdoo, I agree with you regarding your wish they would remove the so-called "ranking", which is based solely on a number of posts. As an example, a poster may have 6,000 posts and be considered "Esteemed" while someone who has 200 posts is considered "Occasional". How is that fair? Someone has a lot of time on their hands and spends it on the boards. The one with the low amount has two jobs, or a sick relative they care for, no time to be here as much as they would like to. Again, how is it fair to use words like Honored, Outstanding, Frequent, Valued, Super, Regular, Respected, Trusted, Exalted, and on and on, based on a number of posts? To discriminate that way just doesn't make sense to me. We are not in a contest here, no one is better or worse than the next one based on how often we post. The moderators may not like what I just wrote but I am not offending or being rude to anyone, I am merely stating my opinion, wrong or right, depending on the status of the reader.

@Lindsays Grandma

please dont make generalizations like that.....you have no way of knowing what is going on in peoples lives whether they post a lot or a little. it is very unfair to say what you said.

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

dooBdoo — Sat, 30 Sep 2017 03:15:57 GMT

KittyLouWhoToo wrote:
I'm only "Esteemed" because I've been here since dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

Hey, @QueenDanceALot, I'm probably "Honored" because I rose out of the primordial soup!😉

Re: UP IN THE RANKS

dooBdoo — Sat, 30 Sep 2017 03:20:59 GMT

Sunshine45 wrote:
Lindsays Grandma wrote:
dooBdoo, I agree with you regarding your wish they would remove the so-called "ranking", which is based solely on a number of posts. As an example, a poster may have 6,000 posts and be considered "Esteemed" while someone who has 200 posts is considered "Occasional". How is that fair? Someone has a lot of time on their hands and spends it on the boards. The one with the low amount has two jobs, or a sick relative they care for, no time to be here as much as they would like to. Again, how is it fair to use words like Honored, Outstanding, Frequent, Valued, Super, Regular, Respected, Trusted, Exalted, and on and on, based on a number of posts? To discriminate that way just doesn't make sense to me. We are not in a contest here, no one is better or worse than the next one based on how often we post. The moderators may not like what I just wrote but I am not offending or being rude to anyone, I am merely stating my opinion, wrong or right, depending on the status of the reader.

@Lindsays Grandma
please dont make generalizations like that.....you have know way of knowing what is going on in peoples lives whether they post a lot or a little. it is very unfair to say what you said.

@sunshine45, You said that better than I did. Thank you.