Re: Just curious about posting count

brownponytail80 · ‎05-30-2015

@brii wrote:
I lost about 21,000 posts.

Whoa!

I teach - what's your superpower?

shoekitty · ‎03-10-2010

I lost about 18,000 posts this last "upgrade", actually more than that. I started posting in 2006. Sometime that year they had a glitch on the board, and I had to register again, and got a new nick. I lost the few thousand posts I had. Then arounf 2003, same thing. Some browser glitch wouldn't let me sign in, and even the techs at QVC couldn't help. I think it was a browser error. I registered again got my shoekitty back, but lost my posts. So here I am.

John, how come they wouldn't let you use your old name? That stinks. Then they made you start over? I am sort of irked and offended about the rating system, as it seems TPTB are rating the posters. I guess some posters are "valued" and "trusted" more than others.

Spoiled grapes, yes! LOL!

debic · ‎09-02-2010

The only time I even notice my post count is when someone brings it up. I have no idea how many posts I lost.

~~
*Off The Deep End~A very short trip for some!*

faeriemoon · ‎03-14-2010

I think I had around 7000 posts. I registered in 2005. I understand that post counts had to change if they deleted some things, but I don't know why our registration dates had to change.

It doesn't really matter, I just don't understand why the date couldn't be carried over.

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

They announced before the new forum launched (at least a week before or more) that they had to pick a 'start date' of 2010 due to the program being used and that dates and post counts prior to 2010 would be lost. It was clearly stated. But apparently many people didn't read QVC's explanatory posts prior to the debut. Judging by my own dates, the month and day are correct but the year says 2010 instead of the correct 2005. Any posts prior to 2010 are 'lost' as far as count.

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

biancardi · ‎03-10-2010

@Moonchilde wrote:
They announced before the new forum launched (at least a week before or more) that they had to pick a 'start date' of 2010 due to the program being used and that dates and post counts prior to 2010 would be lost. It was clearly stated. But apparently many people didn't read QVC's explanatory posts prior to the debut. Judging by my own dates, the month and day are correct but the year says 2010 instead of the correct 2005. Any posts prior to 2010 are 'lost' as far as count.

I've been here a long time and lost probably well over 35K posts in counts. Did they also not bring over a lot of threads as well? That is what someone told me that not only are counts lost, but a lot of the forums threads/posts are gone. Makes it hard for those who like to check out other people posting history here

If you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane ~ Max
Look, I don’t like the taste of broccoli, but it doesn’t get tastier if you call it “Broccoli!”!
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling. ~ Eames

faeriemoon · ‎03-14-2010

@Moonchilde wrote:
They announced before the new forum launched (at least a week before or more) that they had to pick a 'start date' of 2010 due to the program being used and that dates and post counts prior to 2010 would be lost. It was clearly stated. But apparently many people didn't read QVC's explanatory posts prior to the debut. Judging by my own dates, the month and day are correct but the year says 2010 instead of the correct 2005. Any posts prior to 2010 are 'lost' as far as count.

I read it; I just don't understand the reason. Wouldn't it just be information they'd have to input into the system. My guess is they just didn't want to be bothered.

Suziepeach · ‎03-10-2010

@faeriemoon wrote:
@Moonchilde wrote:
They announced before the new forum launched (at least a week before or more) that they had to pick a 'start date' of 2010 due to the program being used and that dates and post counts prior to 2010 would be lost. It was clearly stated. But apparently many people didn't read QVC's explanatory posts prior to the debut. Judging by my own dates, the month and day are correct but the year says 2010 instead of the correct 2005. Any posts prior to 2010 are 'lost' as far as count.
I read it; I just don't understand the reason. Wouldn't it just be information they'd have to input into the system. My guess is they just didn't want to be bothered.

*******
I had posted earlier, read it and thought I understood but I too don't understand the reason. Some lost so many yet some kept a very high post count, same as certain threads gone yet some are left..
Guess their selection decisions are secret, LOL

Go VOLS
Rocky Top you'll always be home sweet home to me.. Good ole Rocky Top, Rocky Top Tennessee... Rocky Top Tennessee

RoughDraft · ‎03-09-2010

@Moonchilde wrote:
They announced before the new forum launched (at least a week before or more) that they had to pick a 'start date' of 2010 due to the program being used and that dates and post counts prior to 2010 would be lost. It was clearly stated. But apparently many people didn't read QVC's explanatory posts prior to the debut. Judging by my own dates, the month and day are correct but the year says 2010 instead of the correct 2005. Any posts prior to 2010 are 'lost' as far as count.

Well that explains why I lost over 7,000 + posts. I guess I participated much more before 2010.

~The only difference between this place and the Titanic is that the Titanic had a band.~

luvsbulldogs · ‎03-14-2010

Back when they did a board change in 2004 they reset everyone's start date to 2004. This time they changed it to 2010. I had thousands of posts and look what they are reduced to now. I have no idea how they come up with the figures. Oh well!!!