topic Re: Quick Question for QVC in Suggestion Box

Quick Question for QVC

Lovethesea — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 03:18:01 GMT

QVC, Please tell us how it was determined that some community forum posters still have thousands of their posts while others have a largely diminished number. Thank you.

Re: Quick Question for QVC

insomniac — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 03:54:12 GMT

This seems to be one question QVC does not want to touch.

Re: Quick Question for QVC

Kachina624 — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:48:26 GMT

I'd like to know too as I lost about 70% of mine and several years of tenure. My original date went back to the default of 10062004.

Re: Quick Question for QVC

gardensla — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:07:53 GMT

I wondered that too!

I noticed one poster who I recall had roughly the same post count as me before the change (about 25K) now has 12K while I show only about 4,500.

Re: Quick Question for QVC

Pook — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:00:10 GMT

To me it looks like if you posted mostly on viewpoints then your posts were gone and not counted because I lost 3/4 of my posts.

Re: Quick Question for QVC

Sweetbay magnolia — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:57:40 GMT

Please. There was a cutoff date for the data transfer to the new format. Why is this critical?

Re: Quick Question for QVC

KYToby — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:15:03 GMT

Seriously?

First, QVC owes us no explanaion, and demanding one is, at best, silly and childish. This is their system. This is their playpen. They make the rules.

Secondly, and realistically, unless you have dealt with significant data migration across platforms, from one system to another, you likely are not going to understand the answer. In many cases, data can get lost or corrupted.

If this were some sort of accounting system or billing platform, it would be incumbent upon QVC to exhaust many manhours and expense to ensure complete and total accuracy, including verifying transactions against backups. Shopping channel forusm, however, are just not worth the time, the epense, or the worry.

The simple solution is to move along to another forum if one does not like this one. Very simple!

Re: Quick Question for QVC

Lovethesea — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:37:08 GMT

@KYToby wrote:
Seriously? Seriously, indeed. What is your problem??

First, QVC owes us no explanaion No one has said that QVC owes us an explanation!, and demanding one is, at best, silly and childish. No one has demanded an explanation, either! I wrote: "QVC, Please tell us how it was determined that some community forum posters still have thousands of their posts while others have a largely diminished number. Thank you." Did you even read what I wrote or what anyone posting above your post has written?? This is their system. This is their playpen. They make the rules. Of course! This is obvious! This is the reason that I addressed THEM!

Secondly, and realistically, unless you have dealt with significant data migration across platforms, from one system to another, you likely are not going to understand the answer. In many cases, data can get lost or corrupted.

If this were some sort of accounting system or billing platform, it would be incumbent upon QVC to exhaust many manhours and expense to ensure complete and total accuracy, including verifying transactions against backups. Shopping channel forusm, however, are just not worth the time, the epense, or the worry. It would be incumbent upon YOU to edit your writing and cease from the blah blah blah. Thank you.
The simple solution is to move along to another forum if one does not like this one. No one has said that they do not like this forum!!! Please move along, Toby; your comments have nothing to do with this topic. Very simple!

Re: Quick Question for QVC

gardensla — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 23:48:32 GMT

@Lovethesea

My kingdom for an "ignore user" button. Why posters who are so rude in their defense of their beloved, do-no-wrong QVC aren't poofed continues to be a mystery to me.

Re: Quick Question for QVC

Moonchilde — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:07:18 GMT

First and foremost, QVC announced well before the change-over that the year 2010 (presumably January 1) was a cut off point. Any data accumulated on a poster prior to that date was not going to carry over. So any posts made prior to that date will never be able to be counted; they were "lost" in the change.

I posted mostly in Viewpoints, but posted very little before 2013 even though I had a join date in 2005. It appears to be that *in number* most or all of my posts are counted. I don't know if posts made in poofed threads are counted. So, I would say Viewpoints has nothing to do with it, unless one routinely had many posts deleted or was a participant in many deleted threads.

Re: Quick Question for QVC

MyGirlsMom — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 02:43:25 GMT

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter how many posts we have. Do we get special treatment or a prize? I wish QVC would do away with post counts, the contributor titles and "heart" counts. We would all be pretty much the same.

Re: Quick Question for QVC

stevieb — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 02:48:14 GMT

@gardensla wrote:
@Lovethesea

My kingdom for an "ignore user" button. Why posters who are so rude in their defense of their beloved, do-no-wrong QVC aren't poofed continues to be a mystery to me.

Yep... Old forum, new forum, makes no difference. Some just seem to have a perpetual burr in the saddle, along with the mind set that the Mighty Q can do no wrong, and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is wrong, idiotic, pathetic and simply needs to get over it and move along... Whatever...

Re: Quick Question for QVC

wildcat fan — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 04:48:07 GMT

My count is thousands lower too. With the new format, posts in Gamers don't add to post count. Also, posts in deleted threads have been removed from my overall post count. I didn't post that much in Gamers and deleted threads in the old format, but I wondered if those types of posts were removed from my post history in the transfer? In the old format, those added to post counts.

ETA: Most of my posts were after 2010, so there were clearly some that didn't carry over.

Re: Quick Question for QVC

Lovethesea — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 05:15:04 GMT

@MyGirlsMom wrote:
In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter how many posts we have. Do we get special treatment or a prize? I wish QVC would do away with post counts, the contributor titles and "heart" counts. We would all be pretty much the same.

Clearly, you are not interested in QVC telling us how it was determined that some community forum posters still have thousands of their posts while others have a largely diminished number, but you didn't need to respond in such a snide manner, did you?? And you would prefer that we "all be pretty much the same"?

Re: Quick Question for QVC

MyGirlsMom — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:47:03 GMT

@Lovethesea wrote:
@MyGirlsMom wrote:
In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter how many posts we have. Do we get special treatment or a prize? I wish QVC would do away with post counts, the contributor titles and "heart" counts. We would all be pretty much the same.
Clearly, you are not interested in QVC telling us how it was determined that some community forum posters still have thousands of their posts while others have a largely diminished number, but you didn't need to respond in such a snide manner, did you?? And you would prefer that we "all be pretty much the same"?

My answer wasn't snide at all @Lovethesea. Really what difference does it make how many posts we had versus have? (I joined in Dec '08 and lost about 45,00 posts)

Yes, we should all be the same - plain 'ol qvc posters.

Re: Quick Question for QVC

redhead65 — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 17:54:28 GMT

Much ado about nothing, but I don't understand the need for discourse.

Why can't we all be civil since we are basically total strangers to one another ?

Re: Quick Question for QVC

SHIRAZ — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:18:47 GMT

All posts prior to the arbitrary 2010 date were deleted as were all posts from May 2015 and June 1-14, 2015. Also probably any posts made to boards that were deleted in the transition without being moved to another board, were lost as well. If some posters "still have thousands of their posts" that's simply because they had even more thousands to begin with!!!!!!!!!

What I find most comical about the whole subject is that people who are complaining the loudest about post counts are all people who are ranked AT LEAST "Super Contributor" or higher. Does having 10,000 posts really make you 10 times superior to to someone who only has 1,000????? Seriously???

Re: Quick Question for QVC

JustJazzmom — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:40:32 GMT

@SHIRAZ wrote:
All posts prior to the arbitrary 2010 date were deleted as were all posts from May 2015 and June 1-14, 2015. Also probably any posts made to boards that were deleted in the transition without being moved to another board, were lost as well. If some posters "still have thousands of their posts" that's simply because they had even more thousands to begin with!!!!!!!!!

What I find most comical about the whole subject is that people who are complaining the loudest about post counts are all people who are ranked AT LEAST "Super Contributor" or higher. Does having 10,000 posts really make you 10 times superior to to someone who only has 1,000????? Seriously???

This reminds me of that commercial where the guy stays at the hotel and now can do brain surgery!!

Post counts, heart counts, titles for contributors are all 'feel good' things for us who post here.

Wah wah-- I want a tiara too!! Made with Epiphany Diamonique!

Re: Quick Question for QVC

Pook — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:10:37 GMT

@Moonchilde wrote:
First and foremost, QVC announced well before the change-over that the year 2010 (presumably January 1) was a cut off point. Any data accumulated on a poster prior to that date was not going to carry over. So any posts made prior to that date will never be able to be counted; they were "lost" in the change.

I posted mostly in Viewpoints, but posted very little before 2013 even though I had a join date in 2005. It appears to be that *in number* most or all of my posts are counted. I don't know if posts made in poofed threads are counted. So, I would say Viewpoints has nothing to do with it, unless one routinely had many posts deleted or was a participant in many deleted threads.

I posted more after 2010 and still lost most of mine. Most of my recent posts from the past 2 years were gone so that cutoff doesn't explain why my posts are gone. There were ongoing discussions and threads mostly from viewpoints that were not carried over. It's really no big deal and life goes on but it is perplexing.

Re: Quick Question for QVC

Moonchilde — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:17:55 GMT

@Pook wrote:

@Moonchilde wrote:
First and foremost, QVC announced well before the change-over that the year 2010 (presumably January 1) was a cut off point. Any data accumulated on a poster prior to that date was not going to carry over. So any posts made prior to that date will never be able to be counted; they were "lost" in the change.

I posted mostly in Viewpoints, but posted very little before 2013 even though I had a join date in 2005. It appears to be that *in number* most or all of my posts are counted. I don't know if posts made in poofed threads are counted. So, I would say Viewpoints has nothing to do with it, unless one routinely had many posts deleted or was a participant in many deleted threads.
I posted more after 2010 and still lost most of mine. Most of my recent posts from the past 2 years were gone so that cutoff doesn't explain why my posts are gone. There were ongoing discussions and threads mostly from viewpoints that were not carried over. It's really no big deal and life goes on but it is perplexing.

To clarify, I didn't mean for my comment to be an explanation for the whole missing posts phenom, it was just one reason as well as my own experience re Viewpoints posting. Others have posted other logical reasons that affect some posters and not others. I think that taken all together, these reasons pretty much cover lost post counts.

What I do find just ODD is why all of the most recent, i.e. 90% of the posts within 2-3 months of the creation of the new forum, have disappeared. I tend to believe that rather than being a function of software, it was deliberate. But that's pretty unfair when 90% of the threads & posts were fine and only maybe 10% were better off gone. I just don't get that.