Re: Moderators - please explain "Contributor" desi... - Page 3

Spurt · ‎03-20-2010

I agree with the OP. I could care less about Contributor Ranks (yes most forums have them, but some don't). It seems that QVC put their emphasis on changes that most don't care about, and eliminated a lot that we did like about the Forums. . One example is the sub forums --- a few have been restored but not all of them, then there are the horrible emoticons, and format....It's kinda like they created a Frankenstein Monster---the worst of the Forums and they adopted what was the worst of Facebook into this current forum.... Other than that the Moderators are doing a fine job and have made some revisions that have been suggested.

Animals are reliable, full of love, true in their affections, grateful. Difficult standards for people to live up to.”

SHIRAZ · ‎06-27-2010

@Moonchilde wrote:
Shiraz wrote : "That said, I think they've created a tempest in a teapot here. A person's post should be read aand agreed with or disagreed with according to the merit of the POST, not according to the raking status of the POSTER!"

What makes you think people would NOT heart a post based solely on its content? Do you think people are blindly hearting all of the posts based on people's ranking? I would imagine no one does that - well, yes, there are exceptions but the moderators have taken care of that :-)

@Moonchilde I was not trying to imply that anyone hearts a post based on status. I believe the vast majority of us only heart individual posts based on merit. I guess what bugs me sometimes is that when I'm reading a post and the "powers that be" have noted that the poster is "trusted" it's like they're trying to tell me that I should pay more attention to these posts, that they're somehow more "worthy." I don't think any of us really feel that way, but its like the implication is there. My comment about the "tempest" refers to the fact that although most of us seem to find the contributor designations silly and childish, there are a small faction of contributors that seem rather obsessed with theirs.

"It doesn't matter if the glass is half-full or half-empty as long as you still have the rest of the bottle."

kittymomNC · ‎08-09-2012

I don't know if it will do any good, but I just emailed the Social Team to ask if they could possibly post something in Community Chat (or somewhere) explaining these designations. It seems that people are now almost fighting about it, and accusing people of "cheating" by poster buddies ganging up and hearting each other to help someone get a higher "rank".

All of this is somewhat silly, in my opinion, but I thought I would give it a try and see what happens. I think the moderators are so busy doing all the things they HAVE to do here to control these boards, they don't have much time to answer questions.

Most of us don't care one way or the other about all this, rankings, or whatnot, but it seems to be getting some people very agitated. So I gave it my best shot.

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

Ah, gotcha, Shiraz.

I'm one who is pretty surprised about the obsession, and also that people haven't run across the concept before. It's extremely common on most forums everywhere, whether it is a heart or another avatar for likes (or something for Dislikes), and terms like "Trusted" or "Super" or "Senior." It's not something QVC dreamed up in their own just to be geeky ;-) it's a normal part of most forums of all kinds. I think that those who understand this don't pay any attention to the designations and can't understand the fuss others are making about them.

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

kittymomNC · ‎08-09-2012

I just received a very nice email from moderator Beth in response to an email I sent asking if they could please explain this for us. She said they definitely would, to give them a day or two, and they will email it to me and also tell me where they're posting it in the forums. I'm sure they will make it noticeable wherever they post it so that everyone will be able to see it, but I will post it here as well.

redhead65 · ‎05-16-2015

Seems to me its fairly self-explanatory .According to the amount of posts you have made and the time you have been here.

redhead65 · ‎05-16-2015

If anyone is "acting up" about the designations I believe they are being childish. I don't think any of us should give it a second thought. Of what importance is it, and what difference does it make to our daily lives on this earth ?

Sounds, trite, silly and very immature to me. It has absolutely no importance whatsoever. Some people will get into a snit about anything.

SparklyTiara · ‎08-16-2012

@kittymomNC wrote:
I just received a very nice email from moderator Beth in response to an email I sent asking if they could please explain this for us. She said they definitely would, to give them a day or two, and they will email it to me and also tell me where they're posting it in the forums. I'm sure they will make it noticeable wherever they post it so that everyone will be able to see it, but I will post it here as well.

It will be good to know. I was curious, too. Thanks!

missy1 · ‎03-10-2010

I am going to turn the heart function off, again. It looks like the higher the heart count, the higher the contributor status. I was thinking it was the post count. Sounds like a popularity contest, in high school. Turning it off, you still see the status under the screen name.