Suggestion Box

[Moonchilde]

---

@ECBG wrote:

The titles, Contributor or Respected contributor really need to be deleated.  Just because someone has a lot to say doesn't make them "respected".  Some of these so called "respected" personalities can get down right nasty and are not respected in any way!

I'd just as soon have number of posts.

---

So, really, your comment about what you think should be the policy for all of the forums is because there are people you don't like who have certain descriptives by their name based on number of posts/hearts received, and since you don't like those people, it annoys you, so - presto change-o please.

Ohhhkaaayyyyyy.....

[Moonchilde]

If they have removed hearts from the equation (not sure they have) it's likely because the # of hearts one has fluctuates constantly due to threads and posts being deleted. When threads/posts are deleted, all hearts therein are lost.

[febe1]

I think the labeling is just nonsense. As for the hearts? I think hearts are ok providing you have likes AND dislikes. What good is a board that just shows likes....

[Krimpette]

This is the list that I had seen on a thread some time ago.  Wonder if it still exists?  (My opinion of the "rankings"?  NONSENSE, pure NONSENSE.  No useful purpose.)

QVC Bulletin Board

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

[MadameQueen]

@violann  Hi Grand Poobah!!   As to the OP, I never look at the titles or the post counts.  I think some people just spend more time on message boards.  QVC could name a poster "Esteemed" or "Respected" or whatever but they would still be on my ignore list.

[gardensla]

---

* valued -- somewhere between Super Contributor and Trusted Contributor

* trusted -- under 2,000 posts 

* respected -- 2,000 to 3,999 posts 

* esteemed -- 4,000 to 7,999 posts 

* honored -- 8,000 posts 

 

If this is true, then I'm due for a bump-up to "Esteemed"!

I think the equation is more arbitrary and open to interpretation by moderators than an automatic change in rank due to post count. (I had over 30K posts before the shift to this new, still awful platform.)

ETA: I think it's a goofy feature that we could do without. A simple post count is enough.

[GingerPeach]

I would guess the titles came with the software.  

[bebe777]

---

@MacDUFF wrote:

@Desertdi

 Chairman ain't all it's cracked up to be...where's my $50?

---

@MacDUFF, lol, and you are the ideal poster child as to how ridiculous this ranking system is.

From my perspective, you are one of the most helpful forum members around here... and yet you only have "trusted" ranking. That's sooooo wayyyyy off base that I really don't have the words to properly describe it. ???!!!???

-- bebe

[HappyDaze]

I have never even paid attention to anyone's ranking. I could not even tell you what one poster I know has for their ranking. It isn't like their ranking is in your face - it is even grayed out in a way- so I am not sure why you just can't ignore it. Sure it is silly and unnecessary but I'd rather the mods work on fixing other more important issues with the site then worry about this. You know, like the jumping pages, the error messages, etc, things that actually affect the functionality of the site.

[bebe777]

---

@gardensla wrote:

---

* valued -- somewhere between Super Contributor and Trusted Contributor

* trusted -- under 2,000 posts 

* respected -- 2,000 to 3,999 posts 

* esteemed -- 4,000 to 7,999 posts 

* honored -- 8,000 posts 

 

If this is true, then I'm due for a bump-up to "Esteemed"!

I think the equation is more arbitrary and open to interpretation by moderators than an automatic change in rank due to post count. (I had over 30K posts before the shift to this new, still awful platform.)

ETA: I think it's a goofy feature that we could do without. A simple post count is enough.

---

awww shoot, @gardensla, and I was hoping that my very unscientific search had gotten it right. From what I've seen, you are a very popular poster (I know that I appreciate your thoughtful and considerate posts) so you probably have a whole bunch of hearts as well.... so back to the drawing board.

When the ranking system was first introduced, it was really easy to see that there was a direct correlation between the hearts and the rankings (once you reached a certain threshold number of posts). Then they started tweaking it and I quickly lost interest in trying to figure out their latest puzzle. -- I only took a look at it again recently when I was given an honored designation, and noticed that I had around 8,000 posts (which is a nice even number). 

Maybe my unscientific observations are just a bit too general... I just don't know what to say.

Oh, yes I do.... please remove this unnecessary ranking system. *s* 

-- bebe