10-21-2024, 06:19 AM
This post was last modified 10-21-2024, 06:20 AM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: grammar
(10-21-2024, 05:34 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: True. Just because someone has a lot of points doesn't mean they were earned honorably.
I'm seeing some obnoxious posters with lots of points.
The number doesn't show quality .. only quantity.
Frankly, this was one of my pet peeves at another website many of us are familiar with... That web site featured two different options to express a form of positive feedback towards a fellow poster. The two options were stars for posts and flags for threads.
It seemed that flagging a thread was a presumptive indication that the member offering it appreciated the thread OP, the topic, or commentary offered by the author... but the stars were "post" specific, which might mean a great number of things.. not necessarily that it was any good.
Stars could mean too many things... they might mean:
1 - The poster expressed themselves effectively, making a good point, raising a valid concern; or
2 - The poster was funny, amusing, and/or witty; or
3 - The poster provided a much-needed aspect of the topic, new or pertinent information, a clear explanation of a troublesome concept; or
4 - The poster is a members' 'friend' whom the member is inclined to support in nearly anything they post; or
5 - The member "agrees" with the posters' stated position... etc. etc. etc.
That many possibilities renders the meaning of a star into a great cloud of indeterminate things... diminishing any specific "honor" value.
Flags follow suit, not necessarily meaning any particular thing, with the very same range of possibilities... again, diffusing the "meaning" of flagging in general.
As the user base grew, the original intent of the flag/star became muddled and lost.
The eventual inclination was to regard it as a "popularity" index, rather than any important value of contribution...
It became the reality that just because a post has many stars or a thread has many flags, it was still debatable whether any of it was important to the topic or especially noteworthy in content...
And so the "honor" aspect shifted from general 'value' to distinct 'popularity'... a classic opening for "D-ego" poison, and the potential that the stars and flags would become fodder for a fat head, and an inflated sense of self-worth in a few folks.
That 'other' website has a fair number of people who came to believe that they were 'special' because of that social aspect... rather than the actual value of their contributions...
It bothered me because I'm the kind of jerk who wants to avoid 'personal baggage' where it is not actually pertinent to the topic.
(Hence my general disaffection with politically-motivated diatribes that are just pop-talk fodder, memes, and drive-by snark posts.)
It's probably just a "me" thing... I probably care about crap that others just don't.
And still... I confess to missing the ability to star a post here and there (though the "+rate" thing is more than an adequate adaptation.)
But not as much as I miss the ability to "flag" a thread... as some of the threads we have here really do deserve a 'standout' indicator of some kind... but that's just my opinion.
The point system, as it is, reflects 'participation and contribution' which each member might be inclined to consider as a measure of their own efforts to address the many subjects we cover here...
Sorry for the long-winded answer... but thanks for being patent enough to entertain it... if you've read this far along.
