I want my 1800 Likes & 450+ Messages back!!!

dude.

 

I am sorry you are frustrated, but I have to be honest...almost every post I ever see from you seems like you are very angry. I don't know any of the details of the backend here, so I am guessing when your old content was deleted it took the likes and messages from those posts away? I mean...I understand why that's frustrating, but is it worth being that mad about? If you are 85 and, as you say, you won't even have enough time left to use all of your trophy points, is it really worth it to spend that time so mad?

 

Your summation is valid and your frustration justified, IMO.

I've had comparable issues with a Mod (no longer actively a member within this community) that I'd apparently pissed off and I believe he had a personal vendetta against my posts - essentially piggy-backing/stacking warning points associated to my posts and his subjective interpretation leading to a ban in excess of 3-months. I appealed such behavior to George et al and to make a long story short - my case was solid. The irony was we actually later established a mutual respect for each other.

I believe George (and others) will address your concerns as outlined above, in due time . . . and exclusions are acted-on based on independent circumstances (I'm one to attest to that at a personal level).

Your contributions - at least I find - are actually refreshing and of a colloquialism I'm rather fond of: calling out bullshit as one sees it (albeit one might usually think through the potential ramifications of verbal / written outbursts). I assuredly know you don't particularly care what anyone writes in response to your posts or the like - but I also don't give a shit that you don't care - I just felt compelled to respond to the narrative above because the situation resonated with me . . .

Having attained octogenarian status is NOT a license to dismiss self-worth; it reflects poorly ones' intelligence. Well . . . unless they're “sundowning” . . . it does happen at that age (and often earlier) - then empathy should be employed - by all means.

 

dude ... if you think the small sampling of messages you've read from me out of the nearly 1000 I've left here represents who I am, then you are very short-sided when making opinions about someone (me in this case). But yes, moronic comments from people who want to offer suggestions about items they quite obviously know absolutely nothing about can irritate me. I don't apologize for that, nor does it have anything to do with all the good I have done for this site in the past and can still do going forward?

Based on " both" of your two (2) separate comments, it would actually appear that you haven't read much more than the headline (title) of this thread. I'm not 85, I'm not "mad" (but I am frustrated). To truly understand WHY, please try reading everything I wrote and not just skim it because you think you know me and that I don't truly have a grievance here. Thank you.

 

Thank you for your understanding. It is much appreciated. I know I incorrectly misunderstood what you wrote when thanking me for posting the latest versions of Retouch4me products. When I re-read what you wrote, I understood it perfectly and immediately apologized to you in public. I obviously though incorrectly that we were good going forward. However, when I posted the simplest of thanks for "taking care" of a problem (that turned out not to be one in the first place) you jumped down my throat severely. I had mistaken you for a moderator (and you thought that was terrible of me). I simply let all that go. I realize all too well that saying "I'm sorry" is basically meaningless because it doesn't actually erase the pain and/or hurt feelings.

Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to response with support. It means a great deal to me.

 

Lol if you see him somewhere, just leave him be, coz hes always angry

 

I apologize if you thought my remark of "Corrected? I'm not a Mod . . . " was relatively harsh. It was not meant to be so . . . Actually, I meant it to reflect I'm merely a peon-member here . . . no better, probably worse . . .

 

Are you Donald Trump?

 

@DesertFox - as all of us usually have full jobs beside this hobby I would say this also applies to george. So simply give george a moment to respond and I am sure a solution can be found. Maybe they simply need to make up their mind how to resolve this.
While I can feel why you are frustrated, like others I somehow also feel a lot of anger in most posts I saw from you recently which is a pitty. But should this forum not be for exchange stuff and be a fun hobby? Thus my suggestion would be to internally followup with george directly and be simply a bit more patient.

 

@mr.c - I appreciate what you said here, however the parts that concern this issue have been on george's plate for approximately 8 months. I even referred to this in my post when I wrote, "I asked @geroge that question a few days ago, but he has failed to respond to me. Probably tired of me asking the question."

As for the perceived "anger issue", it's being way over played. I write with authority and I don't have time or the desire to repeat myself over and over again. I know what I'm talking about on an issue or program problem, and don't have time for people who choose not to listen and/or follow my instructions. I'm not "mad" at anyone generally, I just don't appreciate being challenged by those who don't have the same level of knowledge and experience. If this makes me sound like an a-hole, so be it. I'm not, but I realize I can and do sound that way depending upon how I am approached.

Again, thanks for your concern.

PS - By the way, george himself suggested that I take this issue to the general membership a couple of months ago. I didn't want to do that, but nothing positive is happening and I'm not getting any younger!

 

Roger that, makes a lot more sense to me now and no, unfortunately we are not getting any younger.

 

Specific to acquiring "likes" - and especially for those under the 1000 and later 10000 milestones: I'd be in agreement that accrued "likes" should be separate from posts relegated to being retired or otherwise - as you note - and I agree - there can be (and is) considerable time that goes into performing this hobby of contribution and associated tasks. It's simply (or maybe not??) a matter of coding to allow a positive tally independently - but I also understand the association of tied likes serving as a motivator (if ya will) to monitor one's posts and keep it active (but anyone having downloaded CAN also mirror) - all this is outlined in the Rules.

The issue of having posts deleted and losing those likes places one in limbo as you outline specific to accumulated TP: one is stuck at that threshold until the likes catch up to where they correlate with the prior tally - but at least one doesn't loose the TP based on those lost likes. I can understand both sides of the coin on this one - but the root of the issue is again the post / likes being married to each other.

Next element is again related to those associated posts that add substantial clutter to the site - likes should absolutely be divorced from the post and allowed to positive tally ones' total without loss to facilitate editing / deleting - - - and thus - - - significantly cleaning up these threads. Right now - there are undoubtedly thousands of posts with single likes adding clutter because peeps don't wanna loose those tied likes. I'd be for at least a separation of these-type posts if the admin absolutely won't change like-loss tied to posts with links and subsequent loss. This would additionally allow one to edit and update one's post (especially if informational or instructive) and those requiring an up-to-date re-write; some of the best material I've reviewed here was informational - MUCH MORE SUBSTANTIVE than some shitty preset . . .

Next is the issue ya raise about posts and equitable time, quality-of-post, etc and associated like: 1 like per post regardless of deemed quality or amount of time required to consolidate, organize, etc. I'd be in agreement there should be a weighted-like system based on what's shared - IOW: a simple magazine post gets 1 like but a massive share of significant value should get at least triple that [but this is VERY subjective]. How would this be implemented - maybe something comparable to the way posts are now able to be "rewarded" [with TP, in this case] based on monetary outlay?? See: https://p-v.club/threads/bonus-if-you-share-exclusive-gold-content.34041/

Lastly - Okay - so one hits that 10K mark - now what? Unlimited - status!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But now what the hell to do with the ongoing accrual of TP?? One can gift it at present and there's been limited discussion on things-to-come - - - but as of yet, nothing considerable . . . a work in progress, I guess . . .

@DesertFox - your post raises considerable "short-comings" of the present system (and these have been raised in the past in some iteration) - please don't feel defeated . . . These-type posts are what help a forum move in a positive direction - although I know it may seem glacial . . .

 

you raise some interesting ideas.

 

Excellent review by someone who has experienced and given much thought to the things I have raised and still haven't raised. In brief, THANK YOU! I especially loved your attachment (which only shows as an attachment when reading this from the email received. It shows as a yelling, screaming person ready to pull their hair out when viewed on the site).

PS - As an afterthought, I have some issue with the highlighted part of the following:

"The issue of having posts deleted and losing those likes places one in limbo as you outline specific to accumulated TP: one is stuck at that threshold until the likes catch up to where they correlate with the prior tally - but at least one doesn't loose the TP based on those lost likes. I can understand both sides of the coin on this one - but the root of the issue is again the post / likes being married to each other."

I don't understand both sides of the coin! An EARNED like is earned unless it was fraudulently obtained. A message posted is also earned. I bring up messages because unless things have changed, there are awards for message totals. Lets face it, for the people who contribute to this site, we do so because all of these things (Likes, messages, Trophy Points, etc.) are status symbols more than anything else. One of the first things people do on any site like this is look at the status symbols. Wrongfully, people equate those symbols with levels of knowledge, experience and intelligence. So, of course, we all want to keep what we have EARNED.

And before someone calls me out on the above, my point is that the status symbols should not be the only way to judge a person's level of knowledge, experience and intelligence, yet in reality that's what most people do.

 

Finally.... you got what you deserved. the way you talk to people and fly off the handle all the time is so old.

Also, do you see how ironic your argument is? You are complaining about fairness. What about the "software" you share? Wonder how the owners of that would categorize your actions. Fair is for pussies. Just deal with it and move on.

 

Ah, a person of superior knowledge and intelligence has entered the room. LOL. Since you use to download items from me, do you think the software owners would categorize your actions differently? Or for that matter any of the items you download from this site that had an original price tag? Before attacking me for sharing items you download and use, bring a bigger knife. I talk to people the way they deserve, and you always got what you deserved!

 

My comment is made in the context of the rules in the present-day playground of this forum: Number 18
"If someone finds a dead/low quality/incomplete/broken files link, he should report it. The thread will be marked as [Dead] and the OP will be notified (direct notification with a mention of his name with @). Someone else can post a mirror right away. If the OP fixes the link after someone else posted a mirror he can request the mirror to be removed, but he must provide his own link (not to copy the mirror link). You can only add a mirror link to an existing thread that was marked as [Dead] due to a bad link. If the original link was posted as Gold, the mirror must be posted as Gold also. If the original link was non-gold, then the mirror can be posted as non-gold or as Gold(at the choice of the mirror poster). If no one else posts a mirror during a month since the initial report, the thread will be moved to Trash and the OP will lose ALL of the likes gained in that thread, but no TP."

If Admin deleted the likes in addition to removing TP - I think that would really piss off peeps because the latter is what's used to essentially barter for monthly dues . . . so I'm assuming that decision was implemented to appear somewhat fair for retired posts. Now on the flip-side: If a Mod deems a post (or several) to be inappropriate through routine monitoring or being reported - and those [now deleted posts assessed to be inappropriate] had gained likes resulting in acquired TP - - - then the OP has kinda gamed the system to his/her benefit [but only temporarily] because this is where the limit threshold of TP stalls out until the likes catch-up again.

This should probably be further defined within the rules as stated above - because it really isn't transparent until it happens to a specific individual. Hopefully - that sorta explains what I'm attempting to detail - but keep in mind that's my understanding of the "why" part in light of the rationale not being specifically outlined.

Your issue (as I believe I understand) is you feel your posts have been deleted unfairly. Deletion without explanation is a piss-poor mechanism and should be frowned upon - Mods should be held to a higher standard, and the standard should be equal across the board.

A question - if I may - - - does your Profile page list your warnings? The reason I ask is that initially mine did not and my posts were being deleted without explanation (or so I thought) and then a Mod had to tweak something so I could see the supposed / interpretation of why I was a bad boy . . .

See below - far right:


- EDIT - Oh - I forgot something, sorry - - -
With regard to messages - I honestly don't think the quantity gains anyone anything outside merely being listed here



And if it does - peeps should say "thanks" a hell-of-a lot more . . . but would that be good . . . or just add to the clutter . . .

 

I explained why my threads where deleted in my original post. The reason isn't really important. The issue is that I EARNED those Like and messages and believe they should be restored. There is a major difference between in the items I provide to the site versus what the overwhelming majority of contributors provide. My software threads were continually updated when new versions were released. So within the thread there could be 100s of Likes versus a poor quality preset thread with two or three Likes (for example).

My Profile Page indicates "0" warnings, but even if there were any it wouldn't have had anything to do with the threads.

Way back, during a conversation with @george, he mentioned that I would qualify for something when I reached 1000 messages. That's why I have been including my desire to have the 450+ deleted restored to my totals.

But I think there is some additional confusion and misunderstanding here. Please tell me why anyone would believe that I must re-pay the 1800 Likes deleted, before I can earn any further Trophy Points. I EARNED the Trophy Points awarded from those 1800 deleted Likes. I didn't steal them, I worked very hard for them. The site took them away from me and now believe it is fair and equitable that I replace them? How can anyone in their right mind believe that is just in my case??? So a person who can supply numerous amounts of popular software (the type that earned me the 1800 Likes), is given NO INCENTIVE to continue.

By the way, Rule #18 has been altered considerably since I was actively posting items on the site. Back then moderators where hardly noticed, posting "DEAD" on items never happened. But perhaps they do more now? Couldn't prove it by me, because when I "report" items I want deleted it never happens until I write @george about it. I mean no personal disrespect to any moderator here, just stating my experiences past & present.

EDIT: I believe I must have been mistaken about messages getting some kind of award. The following goes hand in hand with what you said and makes perfect sense. So @george, forget about giving me back my 450+ messages (although it would still be a nice gesture).

Title - Minimum number of Likes
New Member - 0
Silver I - 100
Silver II - 200
Silver III - 400
Silver IV - 800
Gold - 1600
Gold Nova - 3200
Master - 6400
Legendary - 12800
Legendary Master - 25600
Supreme Master - 51200
Global Elite - 102400

 

When I first arrived here, messages were tied to the "Trusted Member" badge. At 1,000 messages, you got this badge and could then participate in organizing group buys (members were required to at least include a trusted member in each group buy). All language to this effect (and the trusted member badge earning criteria) appears to have been wiped from the threads and various ad hoc rules scattered around the site (though I periodically see a member here and there with a trusted badge - so I have no idea how you earn that anymore or if that has simply become a manual designation or a legacy badge). So you're not going crazy @DesertFox - as recently as January 2024 (when I joined and scoured all the rules, FAQs, and general conversation items), 1k messages mattered - but they don't appear to anymore.

Regarding the continued accumulation of trophy points I must admit, I'm having trouble following you a bit here. In some comments, it seems like you DO care about trophy points, and then other times you state that you don't because you'll never use what you have already accumulated. Apart from "status" on your profile, likes ONLY matter for the purpose of gaining trophy points. And I think you've raised an interesting observation about how the system works "under the hood" that many of us probably haven't been in the position of noticing previously, something that @Nikon4life alluded to: trophy points are currently a one-time occurrence.

I always wondered why, whenever I would hit a certain threshold, the system would delay (sometimes by half an hour or more) giving me the earned trophy points. I had always assumed there was some kind of "gaming the system" check that was conducted or something, but now it seems obvious that hitting the next threshold of likes sets some kind of flag in the database and then a scheduled process runs, looks at all the flags, and assigns trophy points. This means that the assigning of trophy points is a separate process than tracking the likes... and that the trophy points can only be assigned once per threshold for each user.

If I'm understanding your core complaint correctly, you disagree with how the trophy points are awarded - i.e. you earned likes, were awarded trophy points based on those likes, then lost likes due to deleted posts, and now it's unfair that the trophy point system requires you to earn your way back to a commensurate amount of likes to trigger the next trophy point threshold. I definitely agree this would be demoralizing and I have to admit that I was initially inclined to agree with your assessment of fairness (or lack thereof in this case). As I thought about it a little more, though, I believe I can see the other side of that argument, too - I think this is why @Nikon4life said "I can understand both sides of the coin on this one."

As I've spent more time in this group, I've seen so many people try to game the system - and the current way that trophy points are assigned is one way that gaming the system is prevented. Hypothetically, if the trophy points were not assigned by discrete thresholds, one could earn enough to accumulate trophy points, then delete everything, and post the same content again, earn likes, and get trophy points... etc. over and over ad nauseum. "Mirrors for likes" farming would certainly be one way to game this to a much greater extent than it is now. If folks realize that they can't "earn" the same trophy points over and over again, it would disincentivize this behavior. Sadly, as you've pointed out, it disincentivizes good behavior, too. A classic problem of a few bad apples ruining it for everyone.

I don't actually see a way around this, short of tying the trophy points to likes dynamically. It could perhaps solve this problem but create others. At a minimum, I'm sure people wouldn't be happy to LOSE trophy points based on a loss of likes. Based on what Nikon highlighted from the rules, it appears implied (based on the fact that they explicitly state that you won't lose trophy points upon losing likes) that admins have considered the pros and cons before coding in the function.

One of the other issues you raised that seems challenging to address is differentiating between "quality" likes and "low quality" likes. If a like was of quality, then it seems that it should not be lost if a post is deleted. But if it's low quality, then it seems appropriate for the like to be lost. How do you operationalize this, though? I have absolutely no clue, and it may be impossible in a setting like this. Which is why having the ability for things to be manually reviewed in a responsive way may, at the end of the day, be the ultimate solution. I do agree that sometimes it seems like mods are entirely absent, but then other times I've seen them be very responsive and making an effort to keep things running well. I imagine managing the chaos of something like this on one's free time can be challenging and unrewarding at times.