You were one of those top 20 I was reading…not to correct you, but to learn from you. I don’t recall trying to correct anyone, whether it’s for spelling, grammer, or their advice, except maybe to ask for clarification for a confusing point. I’m also happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. I know I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll do it again - but not on purpose ever.
If that’s not a good enough compliment, or an attempt at one, then I don’t know what I need to say.
You should say you are at the site to give advice to our readers, this is why the site exists. Don’'t deviate from the purpose of why CarTalk is here, first and foremost it is to give car advice, not provide you will a pool of people that you feel justified in criticizing. Why you would even join up with this thought in mind (and not with helping our readers as being the number one reason you are here) is beyond definition. Am I correct to conclude you looked at an answer given (and did not like it) and then noticed that this person had a Top Twenty contributor designation so you went ahead and joined so that you could bring some people down a notch or two? You need to work on your own post quality (getting some current pratical experience would also be a good idea) , then drop the “attack the Top Twenty people” plan and simply be helpful to our readers. What was going to be your base used to challenge an answer you did not like, grammar and spelling? Put this idea about"getting them" somewhere way at the back of your mind and work on posting the most accurate, helpful, insightful posts that you can. This is why we are all here.
Oldschool, what planet are you on?
And whomever found the “top XX” number relevant is nuts. You can post stuff all day long and enter the “ranks” without ever saying anything. It was just a count - count up the total number of posts. Order them from most to least. Take the 20 with highest number of posts and call it “Top 20.” It was not a quality rating. This whole thread is silly.
Now, a really long time ago, long before the most recent platform, I seem to recall a bunch of really amusing labels for how much one had posted. I wish I could remember, but think something like “Car Talk Novice” to “Get a Life” or something.
I do not think it was all dependant on post count because I made the Top 20 after only a few months of posting, and there were plenty of people here a lot longer than me.
What is your source stating Top 20 simply means “number of posts”?
If it does not have anything to do with quality, why attack someone just for typing a lot?
The only attacks here are the ones by you on chaissos for no apparent reason whatsoever. You have concocted this weird “story” line that involves the previous posting ratings actually meaning something beyond number of posts; that people are jealous & resentful of people with higher ratings; and that chassois (among others apparently) were somehow going after you on this basis.
That’s why I ask what planet you are on, because that story line has no basis in reality. Whatever hangups you perceive people to have are just a reflection of your own. Just relax about the whole thing. Follow your own noble goals of helping out as best you can and figure that sometimes people will disagree with what you have to say.
I can’t give you the source for the past rating system b/c the site is gone - but it was right there, plain as day when you found the right link - a list of contributors with their number of posts. That was it.
This “Chase” writes he “was carefully reading posts espically from Top 20 responders”(why did he pick Top 20 responders if the status is simply based on number of posts?) and states he was quickly able to fiqure out who’s advice was "spot on and who’s was not, but then adds he has no experience in the industry. My advice still is gather some experience and the perhaps your conclusions about who is giving good or bad advice may have some validity. I saw this"assesment’ activity as very odd to be the number one reason you join a site. The best reason is having a desire to help others, not pass any kind of judgement. It was “chases” stated assesment activity that I found to be rather presumptous, espically comming from a person not at all connected to the industry. I hope he drops this activity and concentrates on making his work as good as possible.
My posting numbers certainly were not high when my Top 20 "tag’ came (I had recently joined). There were people on the site much longer than me that were not so honored. I never did see any sort of statement claiming why people were given the status that they were, that is I never read that it was strictly related to number of posts, or that it was related to some other factor. I never read any explaination as to why a person recieved their status rating. I agree it was certainly possible to read how many posts a person made but I never read about any linkage too an effect on contributor status, either in a postive or a negative way.
Cig, I seem to recall the most prolific posters as being rated “long lost Magliozzi brother”.
Ratings mean nothing to me. I respect those that explain their reasoning because they typically have a deeper understanding than those who learned by “rote”. I respect those that don’t explain their reasoning because they’ve often learned by years of wrenching. I respect those that have never lifted a wrench because they often have depth of expertise beyond mine in some related area like physics, chemistry, or electronics. I respect those who are newbies and trying to learn because I respect those who are trying to learn. I respect those who correct me when I blow it because I respect those that know more than I do about a subject I make a statement about. And I respect those that challange my statements because they force me to think about my answers.
We all have something to contribute. We’re all in the same boat, all possessing some knowledge and all possessing some ignorance. Rowing together is much more productive and much more fun than beating one another up with the paddles.
“We all have something to contribute. We’re all in the same boat, all possessing some knowledge and all possessing some ignorance. Rowing together is much more productive and much more fun than beating one another up with the paddles.”
That is my nominee for best post of the day…or perhaps of the week.
Well said, MB!
Thanks.
OK, I’ll try and clarify this one more time, and then I’ll post in this thread no longer. There’s no reason for this tirade against me.
I used to work in the industry, I do not any longer. Past tense. I do have experience.
I was reading EVERY post, mostly to help if I can, or learn if I couldn’t help. I’ve made some suggestions on various topics, and unless I was corrected (only once, I think), I have to assume you (you = populace here in general) agree with my assessment. I’ve seen some posts specifically agreeing with me, so I cannot be all wrong.
I was not (and am not) looking to correct those “top posters”. I did not focus on just the top 20 or 250. I read them all. I found most valid. I did see a couple that were merely corrective posts for English, lack of punctuation, etc. I tried to ignore those. I merely paid more attention to those top dudes.
I had not heard of the site until my Sister-in-Law told me about it, and my first post was a request for assistance, and the reason I joined. I received several helpful responses, and have changed some of the things I do because of them. The problem magically fixed itself - I felt idiotic with that one, but I swear it happened.
Reading things into my words, or failing to read them all, does not constitute an attack by me.
Regards and Ciao,
Chase
One thing about the new format or whatever you’d call it: I tried to respond to specific answers with uncertain results. Seems like you can just make a new comment anymore.
About the ratings issue: I have always assumed (for a whole year now, I guess) that the top 250 and 20 contributers were based on the 1-5 star scales that the questioner could use to rate the answers. I guessed that people either rated an answer highly for the answer they were looking for, or better yet, for the answer that worked.
It can’t be based on volume, can it? A monkey with a laptop could be a top 20 guy if that was the case.
Well anointed one, perhaps you can let us in on just who’s advice is in your opinion not “spot on” and “spouting crap”. From you own keyboard you write you are specificaly following posts from “top posters”, what is up with that? planning some sort of party?
kizwiki, I have never read any explaination about how the Top 20 or Top 250 was/is established. I have never read it was based on the number of posts and I have never read it was not based on the number of posts. I do remember when the ratings started I certainly did not have a large number of posts tied to my name and people were saying how humbled they were to be considered Top 20 or Top 250. Myself, I do not think it is based simply on number of posts.You are correct it would be rather meaningless for the system to be based simply on the number of times you post.
While I have no proof I believe the ratings were based on volume of posts. There are some here who pound out post after post and don’t give one bit of useful vehicle advise but they got into the 250 after a very short period of time.
Like I already stated, it’s only an opinion and let me also say I REALLY DONT GIVE A RATS REAR END about these ratings.
Those who put stock in thier personal ratings show a lack of personal confidence and a bit of insecurity in themselves.
I did not see it that way at all, (in any case it is “their personal rankings”, not thier(sic) personal rankings). I saw the rating system as a small but very much appreciated “Thank You” from CarTalk for a job well done. I did not really expect them to send flowers or candy or offer a position. You can check but I bet you find the word is “advice” not advise(sic). Here I am correcting spelling and I am the one that needs spell check, these two were just too hard to pass on.Who was it that was in the Top 250 but gave “no useful advise”? It could not have been me because I went straight to the Top 20 without even a pause at the Top 250.
"Our Heroes: The Car Talk Leaderboard"
a.k.a. “Time Kill Hall of Fame”:
http://www.cartalk.com/content/timekill/topusers.html
I don’t see any stated connection to being a heavy poster getting you a Top 20 or Top 250 “tag”. That is the policy I want to read BUT It is a fact that all the people in that Top 20 posting list do write the best most helpful posts. The public should be happy that the people that can write the best posts chose to write them often.
You say that link is “current” but it has me at slightly over 2700 posts when in fact I am closing in on 10,000. Current is not a word that applies in this case.
For what it’s worth, when we instituted the Top 20/Top 250 designations a couple of years ago in Public Action, the labels were solely based on the number of posts. The average rating of posts made was not a factor in the label. There’s been no decision yet on what sort of recognition system we will incorporate into the new forum.
"You say that link is “current” but it has me at slightly over 2700 posts when in fact I am closing in on 10,000. Current is not a word that applies in this case. "
Oy. The link is current. The list was last updated 2 years ago…as I clearly said.
The Top XX/Top XXX is and always was pretty much meaningless. Get over it already.
At the very least then our readers can feel comfortable that when they get an answer from a Top 20 man they are getting the best the site can offer as in this circumstance the people in the Top 20 are actually the best the site can offer,just the way the ball bounces in this case, you will get over it, maybe.Look over the list, the best is clearly resting there.
The top 20 and 250 awards should stay gone. As has been touched on by others, I agree that there may be people who post fairly useless advice to reach and keep their top 20 award.
In addition to that, the star rating was easily manipulated by anyone. For example, there is nothing to stop a person from setting up another screen name and password and award star ratings to themselves to feed a need for affirmation. Can’t say it was done but the opportunity was available.