Moderators-Why titles? - Page 5

bamasec · ‎06-02-2012

@SunValley wrote:
These titles sound like something dreamed up at a lodge meeting. I especially chuckle at the "respected" ranking as there have been some posters with this title that I think could be more accurately titled wackadoo contributor.

Lmao!!!!!! How funny!!!

IndiaRose · ‎03-09-2010

I rarely read "downright nasty" posts especially now that the forums are so "downright boring". I would like to see the moderators cease with their subjective approach (or tell us that they are trained psychologists; therefore have the credentials to make subjective determinations) and give posters some leeway to make this board fun again... somewhat like it used to be. Of course if QVC doesn't care I surely will not.

coco14 · ‎06-19-2010

I don't care what they call me, but I do wish they would correctly restore the number of posts I have made over the years. When they made the changes, I lost almost 900 of my previous posts, yet I see others still have high numbers - so why didn't mine count?

Tried talking to various QVC customer service staff, but no one was able to give me an answer or able to update the figure.

bebe777 · ‎12-10-2012

@coco14 wrote:
I don't care what they call me, but I do wish they would correctly restore the number of posts I have made over the years. When they made the changes, I lost almost 900 of my previous posts, yet I see others still have high numbers - so why didn't mine count?

Tried talking to various QVC customer service staff, but no one was able to give me an answer or able to update the figure.

@coco14, last month (on a hunch) I did a quick search within three forum forums (Suggestion Box, Q Talk and one other long time forum) while I was watching TV.

I started with the most recent posts page and then I just kept hitting the "next" page key. I had the feeling that at some point all I would start to see would be the very first post to a thread.

I was curious about this because in the forum I mainly participate in, I had created a "101" thread that gives links to archived informational forum threads. -- While I was doing some housekeeping last month, I had noticed that a number of these older threads only had the very first post of their threads (all the other posts were gone).

What I discovered is that only posts going back to January 2014 still have all the posts in their threads. -- Once you go back to December 2013 (and earlier), only the initial post for each thread is left.

These single posts threads go back to December 2010 and nothing before that seems to exist. -- In all three cases I took the time to look at every single post page and it was so sad to see long lists of "0" additional posts on each page.

From my perspective, that makes the threads before January 2014 pretty much useless.

I know that a number of people have complained about all of the posts that have been lost, but I'm not sure if anyone else had checked to see if there was a pattern to what is missing.

-- bebe

notifications (cause I thought you all would be interested in this): @dooBdoo @MacDUFF @LTT1

icezeus · ‎10-30-2010

Sorry, I much prefer the new boards.

missy1 · ‎03-10-2010

@bebe777 wrote:

I just got bumped up to "Honored" (which is their highest ranking) and it seems to have happened about the time that I hit 8,000 posts.

Initially the rankings seemed to have been based on the number of hearts that folks received, but I think they're completely eliminated that association based all all the (very well deserved) backlash created by this methodology.

Based on what others have posted in the interim, I'm guessing that they experimented with determining rankings by trying out several different version of posts plus hearts for a while.

When I got bumped up recently, I got curious and did a quick rankings check based the rankings of other posts that i read. -- My very unscientific deduction is that I think the ranking are now solely based on the number of posts that a member has. Below are my general unscientific observations:

* 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

The designations before Valued Contributor are for various types of contributors and new member levels, which sound less special (for lack of a better word). Those also seem to be determined by the number of posts that someone has, but I have no idea of what those levels are.

I've also seen "Senior" and "Visitor" designations but I have no idea what they mean. If I remember correctly something like QVC_Community is for hosts, and QVC Community is for vendors.

About the hearts feature...

I love the hearts feature and heart posts to my hearts content. I'm really glad that, at this point, the hearts no longer seem to have any tie to the ranking system.

That said, I wish that they would just eliminate the ranking system. Since they list the number of posts that each poster has, that information is common knowledge. -- The current ranking system just seems to reaffirm this information which makes it redundant and unnecessary.

At this point, the only purpose of the ranking system serves is to upset some members... and I can't see any good rational for doing this.

I've never been in favor of any sort of ranking system and I'd really like to see it eliminated.

-- bebe

So heart count don't matter then? If it's the amount of posts, then many lost thousands. I lost 30,000 with the change.

brewhaha · ‎07-25-2010

Whenever my posts get poofed, I am a steamed contributor.

bebe777 · ‎12-10-2012

@missy1 wrote:
@bebe777 wrote:

I just got bumped up to "Honored" (which is their highest ranking) and it seems to have happened about the time that I hit 8,000 posts.

Initially the rankings seemed to have been based on the number of hearts that folks received, but I think they're completely eliminated that association based all all the (very well deserved) backlash created by this methodology.

Based on what others have posted in the interim, I'm guessing that they experimented with determining rankings by trying out several different version of posts plus hearts for a while.

When I got bumped up recently, I got curious and did a quick rankings check based the rankings of other posts that i read. -- My very unscientific deduction is that I think the ranking are now solely based on the number of posts that a member has. Below are my general unscientific observations:

* valued -- 500 to 999 posts
* trusted -- 1,000 to 1,999 posts
* respected -- 2,000 to 3,999 posts
* esteemed -- 4,000 to 7,999 posts
* honored -- 8,000 posts

The designations before Valued Contributor are for various types of contributors and new member levels, which sound less special (for lack of a better word). Those also seem to be determined by the number of posts that someone has, but I have no idea of what those levels are.

I've also seen "Senior" and "Visitor" designations but I have no idea what they mean. If I remember correctly something like QVC_Community is for hosts, and QVC Community is for vendors.

About the hearts feature...

I love the hearts feature and heart posts to my hearts content. I'm really glad that, at this point, the hearts no longer seem to have any tie to the ranking system.

That said, I wish that they would just eliminate the ranking system. Since they list the number of posts that each poster has, that information is common knowledge. -- The current ranking system just seems to reaffirm this information which makes it redundant and unnecessary.

At this point, the only purpose of the ranking system serves is to upset some members... and I can't see any good rational for doing this.

I've never been in favor of any sort of ranking system and I'd really like to see it eliminated.

-- bebe

So heart count don't matter then? If it's the amount of posts, then many lost thousands. I lost 30,000 with the change.

@missy1, I know and that's another reason why I think they should just eliminate the ranking system.

While it may not be completely based on post numbers at this point, I think that posts still play the very major role. -- In another forum, someone just mentioned that they got moved up from Super Contributor to Valued Contributor when they reached 500 posts.

I feel really sad for the folks who lost so very many posts. I only lost about 1,000 posts and I ticked about that.

-- bebe

febe1 · ‎01-22-2012

I pay no attention to labels and right now don't know what I am. Whenever someone writes about it, I go back and look and quickly forget. Sorry, they're so silly.... It's like when you got a star in elementary school.

NanaLinda · ‎03-19-2010

This is a silly topic to even be discussing! Who cares? I don't even notice the titles and I'll bet a lot of others don't either, or if they do, it doesn't matter to them. Too many other things to worry about...