1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Suggestion Petition to revise the 'likes' system or remove it

Discussion in 'Support & Feedback' started by evershawn, Mar 20, 2013.

  1. digitalpoint

    digitalpoint Overlord of no one Staff

    Messages:
    38,333
    Likes Received:
    2,613
    Best Answers:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    710
    Digital Goods:
    29
    #61
    Bottom line is that until someone comes up with a better way to measure a contributing/established member, it's staying the way it is. Going back to a user needing to post 25 random posts and being a member for 14 days before they are considered "established", is not a better way of measurement.

    I'm not opposed to changing how it works now, but if someone wants a realistic chance of changing it, their argument should include a better automated gauge.
     
    digitalpoint, Mar 24, 2013 IP
    ryan_uk and kingofking like this.
  2. indyonline

    indyonline Prominent Member

    Messages:
    4,626
    Likes Received:
    248
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #62
    How about something for the people who have followed the rules for years and not been banned?
     
    indyonline, Mar 24, 2013 IP
    evershawn likes this.
  3. kingofking

    kingofking Prominent Member

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    320
    Best Answers:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #63

    I think now the stress is on "contribution" rather than "abiding by rules". Some members could have just signed up and hardly made 1 or 2 posts. Still this means they have followed the rules. So, can we expect some 5-10 likes to them during such migration to new system?
     
    kingofking, Mar 24, 2013 IP
  4. Spoiltdiva

    Spoiltdiva Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    7,732
    Likes Received:
    2,889
    Best Answers:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    520
    #64
    Oh c'mon I was just joking. We can have a laugh or two can't we?;)
     
    Spoiltdiva, Mar 24, 2013 IP
  5. indyonline

    indyonline Prominent Member

    Messages:
    4,626
    Likes Received:
    248
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #65
    actually it's both...

    ummm, no. read the rest of my posts...
     
    indyonline, Mar 24, 2013 IP
    evershawn likes this.
  6. kingofking

    kingofking Prominent Member

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    320
    Best Answers:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #66

    Rightly said. But, whatever parameter you take to define the contributing member, i think you would have some critics for sure ;)
     
    kingofking, Mar 24, 2013 IP
  7. indyonline

    indyonline Prominent Member

    Messages:
    4,626
    Likes Received:
    248
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #67
    Sure. But I don't agree with the one liner thing. I have went out of my way THOUSANDS of times to help people in great detail...
     
    indyonline, Mar 24, 2013 IP
    ryan_uk and evershawn like this.
  8. digitalpoint

    digitalpoint Overlord of no one Staff

    Messages:
    38,333
    Likes Received:
    2,613
    Best Answers:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    710
    Digital Goods:
    29
    #68
    To be honest, I'd be more inclined to revoke established member status for people who *didn't* follow the rules. For example you could do something like a user needs 3 *more* Likes for every warning they got historically.

    Rewarding someone for doing nothing wouldn't be that useful. If a user signed up 5 years ago and never made a single post or did anything, they should be considered contributing/established? Doing that would make the whole system rather pointless... spammers just register accounts, don't do anything and then come back in a year (or whatever) with their zillion accounts that never did anything... and now they are established? The whole point of the system is that if you contribute nothing (or only low quality), you will *never* get established... Spammers/scammers *generally* aren't going to bother.
     
    digitalpoint, Mar 24, 2013 IP
  9. indyonline

    indyonline Prominent Member

    Messages:
    4,626
    Likes Received:
    248
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #69
    true and understandable but some people have brought up some good points.
     
    indyonline, Mar 24, 2013 IP
    evershawn likes this.
  10. Spoiltdiva

    Spoiltdiva Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    7,732
    Likes Received:
    2,889
    Best Answers:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    520
    #70
    I realize this, I've been here for 2 years. I was just teasing you a bit. I fully realize that you are a valuble member.
     
    Spoiltdiva, Mar 24, 2013 IP
  11. indyonline

    indyonline Prominent Member

    Messages:
    4,626
    Likes Received:
    248
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #71
    ok, sorry if I took it the wrong way.
     
    indyonline, Mar 24, 2013 IP
    evershawn likes this.
  12. indyonline

    indyonline Prominent Member

    Messages:
    4,626
    Likes Received:
    248
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #72
    Then add a min post count to it... For real man, there are people who have many post that have been here for years, I just think there should be something in place for them.
     
    indyonline, Mar 24, 2013 IP
    evershawn likes this.
  13. snakeair

    snakeair Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,743
    Likes Received:
    198
    Best Answers:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    280
    #73
    We have a design contest thread in our marketplace section on v7n
     
    snakeair, Mar 24, 2013 IP
    indyonline likes this.
  14. Spoiltdiva

    Spoiltdiva Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    7,732
    Likes Received:
    2,889
    Best Answers:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    520
    #74
    My sense of humor unfortunately *often* is only funny to me!:eek:
     
    Spoiltdiva, Mar 24, 2013 IP
  15. indyonline

    indyonline Prominent Member

    Messages:
    4,626
    Likes Received:
    248
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #75
    lol =)
    I think I been guilty of that before too =)
     
    indyonline, Mar 24, 2013 IP
    evershawn likes this.
  16. kingofking

    kingofking Prominent Member

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    320
    Best Answers:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #76

    Completely agreeing to this :p :p LOL
     
    kingofking, Mar 24, 2013 IP
  17. Spoiltdiva

    Spoiltdiva Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    7,732
    Likes Received:
    2,889
    Best Answers:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    520
    #77
    Ya well that's just the way it is.:rolleyes:
     
    Spoiltdiva, Mar 24, 2013 IP
  18. indyonline

    indyonline Prominent Member

    Messages:
    4,626
    Likes Received:
    248
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #78
    Less opportunity for "established members" to make money here.
    One less "benefit"
     
    indyonline, Mar 24, 2013 IP
    evershawn likes this.
  19. digitalpoint

    digitalpoint Overlord of no one Staff

    Messages:
    38,333
    Likes Received:
    2,613
    Best Answers:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    710
    Digital Goods:
    29
    #79
    So you basically think we should go back to the old system of a certain amount of time being a member and a certain number of random posts? If anything, the users who have been here longer should have gotten *more* Likes vs. new users, why hold old users to an exponentially lower standard? Have you by chance forgotten all the "high quality" posts before the change was made? Do you really think it's a good idea to incentivize people to make idiotic pointless posts again?


    Side note - I'm actually *very* happy with how things are working under the new system vs. the old. If you compare the timeframe since the change was made to the same timeframe before...

    Overall traffic is up 4.36%
    Broken down further, high quality traffic is *really* up, low quality is down:
    US traffic: +9.30%
    UK traffic: +10.55%
    Canada traffic: +7.79%
    Australia traffic: +11.02%
    Germany traffic: +5.32%

    India traffic: -2.10%
    Indonesia traffic: -12.85%
    Pakistan traffic: -11.15%
    Malaysia traffic: -9.97%
    Turkey traffic: -14.75%

    It sucks to make those generalizations that certain geographical regions are lower quality traffic/users on average, but that's the reality. I don't know any website owner that would take 50,000 users from Pakistan vs. 50,000 users from the United States if they had to pick one or the other. That's not to say all users from those countries are bad, nor are all users from places like the US good... but if you are talking in terms of *on average*, yes.
     
    digitalpoint, Mar 24, 2013 IP
    ryan_uk and malky66 like this.
  20. kingofking

    kingofking Prominent Member

    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    320
    Best Answers:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #80
    Very sad to see my country on a "Low quality" traffic list :( :( But, as you said when taken an average, it is that way and we have to agree on that :(
     
    kingofking, Mar 24, 2013 IP