Community Chat

[SahmIam]

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

[SilleeMee]

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

[stuyvesant]

---

@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.

[QueenDanceALot]

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

[Lindsays Grandma]

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.

[chrystaltree]

...just checking

[dooBdoo]

---

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.  

[sunshine45]

---

@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.

[dooBdoo]

---

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!😉

[dooBdoo]

---

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.