Moderators - please explain "Contributor" designations... ?

kittymomNC · ‎08-09-2012

ETA - 6/28/15 - 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 people will see it.

I just got a message that I "Ranked Up to Valued Contributor" from Super Contributor. What does that mean? Am I of more "value" than I am "super"? Could you please give us an explanation of all these contributor designations?

I don't care what kind of contributor I am, as long as I'm allowed to "contribute"... but there are New Contributors, Contributors, Super Contributors, now Valued Contributors, did I miss any?

What makes you go from a Contributor to a Super Contributor, and then to a Valued Contributor? Others have asked this question and like me, they really don't care to be classified as anything in particular.

Do we have to have those classifications? And I think people are beginning to feel like the contributor status and the Top Hearted lists, etc. are winding up being some kind of popularity contest. Are they really necessary?

I may not get an answer, but I wanted to "contribute" my opinion...

(And for the one-hundredth time, I will ask for different emoticons...)

Krimpette · ‎03-09-2010

I'm not at all a fan of those designations also. In fact, I find them to be rather "tacky" or even grade-school-ish. And as bad is the lack of information as to how they have been determined. I wish they'd get rid of them, the hearts, etc. This is not Facebook.

GingerPeach · ‎03-12-2010

I completely agree and also have asked that some of these "rating"-type things just go away.

We're not here to be in a popularity contest. I would hope we'd all outgrown that a VERY long time ago.

[was Homegirl] Love to be home . . . thus the screen name. Joined 2003.

ChynnaBlue · ‎05-22-2012

In most forums, these rankings are determined solely by post count. The idea is that veteran posters know the ropes and their opinions may be based on more experience. They have nothing to do with popularity, only how frequently someone posts.

In my own experience on forums over the years, the number of posts is no indicator of wisdom or value. Some forums I've been a part of dropped those titles, but some people see them as achievement levels and really like them. I usually just ignore them and only use post count as an indicator that someone may be new and need more help than someone else and answer questions with that in mind.

Click here for Forum Tips

Puppy Lips · ‎05-09-2010

Personally, I don't like the whole new look of the forum. I don't read the dumb blogs. And I don't have the time or patience to make any changes to my settings to make it more likeable to me. So I will be on these boards much much less.

Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else. Margaret Mead

kittymomNC · ‎08-09-2012

ChynnaBlue wrote:
In most forums, these rankings are determined solely by post count. The idea is that veteran posters know the ropes and their opinions may be based on more experience. They have nothing to do with popularity, only how frequently someone posts.

In my own experience on forums over the years, the number of posts is no indicator of wisdom or value. Some forums I've been a part of dropped those titles, but some people see them as achievement levels and really like them. I usually just ignore them and only use post count as an indicator that someone may be new and need more help than someone else and answer questions with that in mind.

I thought that too, but the post counts for long-time contributors have apparently changed on the new boards. Also, I just checked and my post count is 5,363 which is probably correct, and another poster's count is 6,401. Yet I just got a message that I "ranked up to Valued Contributor", and I was previously a Super Contributor. The person with 6,401 posts is still classified as a Super Contributor. So how could I "rank up", and she wouldn't?

It just makes no sense, and it's not needed. But probably not a lot we can do about it. And I definitely agree with your other statement that I bolded. Thanks.

GingerPeach · ‎03-12-2010

So many of the numbers indicating how many posts we've supposedly posted are incorrect. It would have been so much simpler if they'd retained the original numbers and left off the designations.

[was Homegirl] Love to be home . . . thus the screen name. Joined 2003.

kittymomNC · ‎08-09-2012

Sorry, I checked before I started this thread but I missed the other one already going. Hope I didn't step on any toes.

Johnnyeager · ‎09-05-2014

If I recall from my time on the HSN Boards, they also use rankings based upon not only activity, but also how "valuable" your comments are; meaning the number of hearts you receive may be factored in, since the "community" views you favorably.