Please don't forget to star me

Well you know I don't mean that literally.

I wonder if any one else has noticed that when a thread gets a lot of activity there are not that many stars given away compared to the activity. To me it appears that we get caught up in the activity of the thread and simply forget to star interesting threads.

I reckon if someone replies say five times the system should award a star automatically.

Just an idea could it work would it work or is that just to much additional code?

I think what bothers me most is when people start a thread asking for 'input' and abandon it after a day or two. You should be able to -star them for ignoring their thread.

If you were to ask me, I think any replying should be 1/4 star (equivalent) and a star on a reply should complete the star, and multiple replies should be weighted appropriately since that is participation on the thread / forums: 4 replies in a thread earns the equivalent of one star (doesn't have to be visually identified though); 4 replies across disparate threads earns the equivalent of 1 star for the member... but I don't know. Since the points system has been altered, I don't know what's going on, particularly since I didn't even know what was going on beforehand.

It's all good though. I've enough points to get me some lines, a background color, avatar and such... just don't know what I want to do with them.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by abecedarian]

Stars are given as an indication that you agree with somebody or that they have presented a point well even if you don't necessarily agree. Automatic stars wouldn't take into account the fact that many threads get a lot of responses but are actually troll posts. There are some members who are very good at simply angering everybody else and getting a lot of posts that way.

Stars aren't hard to get. Just be straight forward and persuasive.

One of the best ways is to be honest but polite.

Being funny is another way to get stars. It takes more intelligence to make somebody smile than to piss them off.

Most of our members apperciate a good sense of humor and will respond well to that.







[edit on 073030p://f12Wednesday by badgerprints]

reply to post by abecedarian

---

Or when someone immediately makes a thread, then immediately logs off.

And they never respond once... it's frustrating, and odd.

I always forget to star and flag, and that stuff, I need reminders, so anyone if i'm on your thread, make sure I s and f or just s, or just f.

I think stars should remain totally within the control of the member. if stars start to be awarded automatically as you suggest then it could nullify the importance of stars in the first place.

Members might start threads just to get a discussion going with a certain individual and then move on to the next person, engaging another poster in that thread in specific questions under the guise of a discussion but basing these questions purely with the agenda of being awarded an auto-star. It could become a game with some to see how many auto-stars they could get out of a thread.

For that reason I do not think it would be a good idea and the quality of posts could drop.

I have also noticed some threads that have a lot of activity have few stars but there could be many valid reasons for this. Perhaps the thread though interesting is a "rehashing" of another thread with people revisiting the new thread to reinforce what they might have missed saying in the prior thread that dealt with the similar topic.

Of course if someone misses posting something that he or she thought relevant they could always use the edit button but then that thread could be out of sight by then and thus out of mind.

An interesting idea nonetheless as I see it but I do not think it would be good in the long term.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by SmokeJaguar67]

Heyyyyyyyyy

I thought stars were a way to show that you LIKE someones avatar???



OR you only click the star if you read a thread & its nightime and you can SEE stars outside....

( I vote for #2 )




oh my..........

>>>>> TRG runs away snickering



[edit on 16-9-2009 by theRiverGoddess]

my implication was some way to reward for participation in the forums, hence my suggestion to also include -stars (negative). -stars could be changed by the person who awarded the -star if the one who received the -star became more active in the thread.

okay though. more thought needed. point taken.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by abecedarian]

I'm guilty as sin of that one one time but then I lost my train of thought and got confused as to what to do next. I'm still confused but haven't abandoned it. It only would look like that from the other side.

Stars dont equate to the number of posts, period. Stars are given when someone presents a good point or when someone agrees with the post.

After being here for over 2 years, Ive seen threads with over 300 posts, and only 1 or 2 stars. A thread should be judged on the number of flags or stars, not the number of replies. Large threads can still lack logic or reasoning, and in some cases look as though they have been written by a dyslexic chimp. More often than not, these threads only get the large number of posts as members are constantly abusing each other or getting into verbal slinging matches.

Is it time for this thread again already?

I think this happens at least 4 times a year.

Stars, flags, coloured bars, contribution levels etc etc

Someone always wants to know how it hapens or when it happens or why it happens.

The answer is this:

It just happens - it depends what a particular person is thinking about or feeling at the moment in time that they read or write a thread.

No big secret except one:

If you write quality, it will get noticed.

reply to post by badgerprints

---

Yea very good point - perhaps a silly idea for automatic stars

reply to post by majestictwo

---

You First...