Ratings.... - Page 5

scotttie · ‎03-09-2010

Well, let's just hope that their method and reasoning are objective. That's why it ought to be based on post count. Again, especially now, since if they don't 'like" a post (objectively) its deleted.

I think any response from them which is an additional layer of some highly (or even partially) subjective criteria will do nothing but create bad feelings or more disharmony. After all, its suppose to be a Q forums community. No one likes to be made to feel second class in any community in which they participate. And more devisive and subjective layers added to the equation will only do harm to that ambition. IMHO.

Already, a huge portion of users feel a bit alienated due the mystery moderation. To add more subjective "decision-making" to that would only further erode the already fragile trust in who is and what is controlling things behind the scenes.

Its what happens when places get too busy and too involved in every minutia. One risks doing more damage than good.

BRAVO.

scotttie · ‎03-09-2010

@Cakers3 wrote:
I thought it WAS based on post counts. Your value as a person increases everytime you post. Ok.

Honestly - I'm not sure what the big whoop is over this - and since it won't be the last time we hear about it - no sense admonishing others that this topic has already been discussed. LOL

I actually don't care.

I truly don't care either. I post rarely these days on this board but for the folks who do I hope they straighten this mess out.

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

A lot of what is going on here makes very little sense, shrugs.....

Johnnyeager · ‎09-05-2014

Heaven help us if some of the posters on these Boards ever reaches "Exalted" status.

The word alone...the behavior is already there, they just need the title to cap things off.

SuiGeneris · ‎03-10-2010

@kittymomNC wrote:
I just received an email from moderator Beth about the contributor designations (I posted earlier that I took a chance and emailed asking them to give some explanation).

She said that the designations are helpful to people new to the Community and trying to get to know other posters. She also said that the designations are based on a mixture of actions, and that no one action will improve a person's contributor status. That's all she could tell me now, but said they will be posting something in the forums after the July 4th weekend.

Apparently the PTB have reasons for doing this, and hopefully the moderators will be able to post something to explain the reasoning behind it.
*************************************************************

Could that "mixture of actions" be Beth's oblique way of confirming what I found at the comparable board site that uses the same ranking designations?

From my previous post:

Ranks are used to indicate the number, quality, and impact of your posts. As you spend more time in the community participating, your ranking level will progress.

Number of posts is self-explanatory.

Quality of your posts would be subjective, as surfk pointed out.

Impact of your posts could be determined by number of hearts received on a post, or number of responses to a thread.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

♥ Be yourself; everyone else is already taken. -- Oscar Wilde ♥

Burnsite · ‎03-10-2010

I agree, suigeneris--the "quality" element would have to come from the moderators and would be subjective.

I never check a poster's rank, but I would think a new poster will check once in a while, when s/he strongly agrees or disagrees with a post.

One thing this system tends to discourage is the occasional slash and burn posters who drop in to deliberately derail a thread. They lose a post and it doesn't count if the post is deleted. (That's always been true, I think.) But if the post does stay up, an openly hostile post isn't going to gather many hearts and flowers.

On threads where opinions are sharply divided . . . I've noticed that these are among the most "hearted," as people on both sides of the debate "heart" the posters who have stated things they agree with.

But people who just pop in to hurl an insult aren't going to get hearted and may even have their post deleted. If all this is true, it's an improvement. I felt that there were a few people who almost swaggered on the old BBs. They used to log in to insult or bait.

They reminded me of the old Monty Python skit "Grannies With Chains," middle-class housewives on street corners, swinging bicycle chains and chain smoking, looking around for a fight.

If thread-poaching ceases in this new system, that'll be a gain for rational conversation--also for lighthearted, fun conversation.

kittymomNC · ‎08-09-2012

Just to be clear, I don't care what QVC wants to call me... I just appreciate the option of "contributing" to the discussions here if I so choose.

That said, there have been MANY people questioning these designations on so many threads (both ones remaining and ones gone), including one that had posters fighting so much if they could have hit each other through their computers, I think they would have. Others have speculated and tried to find out what the designations mean, and then some apparently just have simple curiosity. In any case, people are continuing to make it very clear that they DO WANT TO KNOW, for whatever reason.

I thought since the moderators are apparently so busy trying to deal with the forums, maybe they haven't seen all the questions that have been posted. So I decided I might try emailing them to see if they would explain and it would give everyone the answers they apparently want. All I was trying to do was help... but maybe I should have just stayed out of it, since now there seems to be even more consternation about what Beth the moderator said in her email. I will bow out and leave it to individual posters to get whatever information they want... maybe it will be posted after the weekend.

I guess whatever they decide to tell us, it will not make everyone happy, and some posters who have accused others of trying to "game the system" will probably still be at it (and yes, some did make those accusations) .

surfk · ‎07-12-2010

I agree that most users really don't care.

Its just what happens when things are designed to rather have people questioning what ought to be a direct cause & effect.

That's why keeping things simple, upfront and objective is usually the best way to go.

And while I'd guess that the vast majority of Q forums posters truly don't care, no one likes to ever feel like they're being jerked with.

I mean, vague comments such as "and no one can do anything about their ranking..."(based on what therefore has to be some subjective criterion or judgment since posting more would change the ranking if it were based simply on that) isn't really all that user-friendly an approach to running a public forums.

So if its designed or set up to be subjective and therefore easily manipulated behind the scenes, it will cause a lot of users (even those who really don't care...or didn't care before) to question the entire process - and whether or not its worth it to them to continue to even bother posting here.

I mean, if one's ranking is tied to some hidden, behind the scenes "panel" of the "judges", then what is really the point of all that??

Even on at the Olympics, the judges have to sit there and show the world their faces. lol