Suggestion Box

[GingerPeach]

I just reached "super" contributor at 250 posts.  Not sure how I feel about having the number of hearts decide anyone's designation though.

As you said, a lot of over-thinking. 

[Krimpette]

I have only 72 "hearts".  I'm thinking that they have "over-rated" me!

[TY]

How many contributor designations can you find?

1. Contributor

2. Super Contributor

3. Valued Contributor

4. Frequent Ccontributor

5. Trusted Contributor

6.Respected Contributor

7. Esteemed Contributor

8. Regular Contributor

9. Occasional Contributor

I'm was wondering how/why I went from Super Contributor to Valued Contributor but at least reading this thread all the way through has cleared up the how and why.

[bebe777]

---

@TY wrote:

How many contributor designations can you find?

1. Contributor

2. Super Contributor

3. Valued Contributor

4. Frequent Ccontributor

5. Trusted Contributor

6.Respected Contributor

7. Esteemed Contributor

8. Regular Contributor

9. Occasional Contributor

I'm was wondering how/why I went from Super Contributor to Valued Contributor but at least reading this thread all the way through has cleared up the how and why.

---

For some reason or other, the "new" posts designation at the top of the forum page manfunctioned, and I just reread about 30 posts that I had read over a month ago. I didn't realize this had happened until, towards the end, I started reading one of my older posts. So, once again, I just went through all the frustration this issue had initially stirred up.

TY1,  to the best of my knowledge this is how people move up these categories (for lack of any kind of, sort of better word). I don't have this information written down anywhere, so I may have missed something:

1) New Member (or is it Contributor)

2) Contributor 

3) Occassional Contributor 

4) Frequent Contributor

5) Super Contributor

6) Valued Contributor

7) Trusted Contributor 

8) Respected Contributor 

9) Esteemed Contributor 

10) Honored Contributor

My guess is that we'll probably see a new designation when someone reaches between 2,400 and 3,200 hearts. 

I like the hearts idea but I could care less about the designations (really!). I've followed the hearts discussion with interest because, at first, I was totally clueless about it (this is the only MB I take part in). It's just in my nature to go exploring when I don't get an answer to a question that sparks my curiousity. And I wasn't getting any concrete answers. 

If you'd like some additional observations about how the "hearting" affects the designations under people's names, there's some additional info in this thread: go to my posts (#63 and #65), and Shiraz's posts (#64 and #66).

I initially posted my observations simply because any number of people wanted more information about how the hearts work. Period. That seemed to create an energy of it's own, so I just walked away.

--

I posted this in a few other threads this morning, but it probably makes the most sense to post it here...

I really appreciate the hearts function: it's fun and helpful, so that's a plus for me. 

Initially I didn't understand the criticism about the hearts design features, but now I think it's sinking in. I'm not trying to speak for other people (because I'm not a mind reader), but I'm wondering if the criticism has to do with the "titles" (Valued, Respected, Honored, etc.) that people acrue. 

Honestly, I don't pay much attention them, because I don't find them useful.

If that's the main issue that some people have with them, then why not just remove these monikers and keep the basic hearts function.

Just my two cents...

-- bebe 

P.S. @Beth-QVC , earlier this month (in post #46 of this thread), you mentioned that you would be sharing more information with us on how the hearts function works. I'd really appreciate an update. Thank you

[Montana]

I do not have a problem with contributor designations myself and I am not high up on the ladder either. But since some of the community feel slighted or devalued by them, I think it would be better not to use them.

I also don't care if rankings are tied to the number of hearts received. Not sure if this is even true but we won't know for sure until there is an official explanation.

[javala]

---

@missy1 wrote:

The problem with these rankings are they are not a true post count, when we joined. I haven't posted much in the last few years, when I registered in 2007. Many of us had 30,000 + posts.

---

I agree I joined in 2004 under Java, than Javala, than Javala-la doing the daily Y&R  but than lost my password and had to start over a few times...

[blackhole99]

I like the heart function, I could do without the designations, but I would like to see my true number of posts since 2004 listed.

[insomniac]

No moderator has yet explained the "contributor" designations.

Is it possible that no one from QVC understands it either?

[sailor_moon]

---

@insomniac wrote:

No moderator has yet explained the "contributor" designations.

Is it possible that no one from QVC understands it either?

---

Or they're trying to come up with a plausible explanation that does not offend anyone. 

[Snicks1]

I have asked questions a few times of the moderators and Q's social team, have yet to receive a response to any questions I have asked. Maybe they have answered my questions in some other thread and don't feel like responding again, but who has the time or inclination to read through every thread on these boards to get answers to what would only take a few seconds for "them" to answer to a specific questions posted. I have given up on getting responses back from them. Lol. Will just muddle through on my own. The contributor designations mean nothing, IMO, just some other thing for people to get worked up over. I personally like the hearts, makes it so quick and easy to let someone know you like or agree with their post. I think that is what they are for, or that's how I am using them anyway.