| |
|
| ||||||||
| Register | Blogs | FAQ | Members | Social Groups | Chat | Scheduled Chats | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Feedback & How Do I? Comments, suggestions, tips & tricks |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
|
#1
| ||||
| ||||
quality is what you like, not quantity, that a poster today is one of the "top posters" when the thread to which she's posting is one in which she's racked up dozens of negative votes, today alone, and virtually no positives, for deciding to keep an apparently healthy wild snake as a captive pet? I guess I'm not understanding the ranking system. |
|
#2
| ||||
| ||||
The statistics only mean something if you put stock into them. I think its safe to assume that everyone here knows that a large number of posts does not equal quality posts. |
|
#3
| ||||
| ||||
Well, I understand that, but it seems to say it's ranked by quality. |
|
#4
| ||||
| ||||
No. I'm trying to say that JUST because this statistic is based on quantity, what we really care about it Quality! It's just a number. No need to read more into that is there. In the case of bad threads gone wild, it is what it is, someone who is has been posting a lot, but not necessarily good posts. |
|
#5
| ||||
| ||||
I don't think I did read more into it than what is there. It says "top posters." It doesn't say quantity is what that determination is based on, and it suggested to me that it was NOT. But I understand it now, thanks for the explanation. |
|
#8
| ||||
| ||||
I hadn't even seen that before. I guess i've been pretty prolific today, eh? |