suremoving.com

Guest

Careful

Post by Guest » Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:08 am

<quote user="boonsiri">ANY member with such high status NOT to be legit, or thrustworthy[/quote]

An assumption that activity level (what you're calling "high status") equates to "trustworthiness" is shaky at best.

Activity level (the metallic designation, like "Platinum member") is nothing more than a measure of the number of posts, comments, and ratings one has made. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with reliability, credibility, or trustworthiness.

While it may seem intuitive that someone who has made many posts and ratings "MUST" be credible, reliable, and trustworthy, the better way to judge those things is by examining the CONTENT of those posts and comments (you'll never know how these people rated).

My favorite example is a monkey and a banana. If you gave the monkey a banana every time it hit the right keys for "R-A-T-E-D", it would soon become a Platinum member.

That said, I have to say that my own opinion of uhka tutka is high. That's not because he is a Platinum member, but rather because of the quality of his posts and evaluations.

So you happened to get this one right, but your assumption that he was held in high regard simply because he is a Platinum member is flawed.


Boonsiri
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:06 am

RE: Careful

Post by Boonsiri » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:16 am

<quote user="bobjam">
An assumption that activity level (what you're calling "high status") equates to "trustworthiness" is shaky at best.

Activity level (the metallic designation, like "Platinum member") is nothing more than a measure of the number of posts, comments, and ratings one has made. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with reliability, credibility, or trustworthiness.

While it may seem intuitive that someone who has made many posts and ratings "MUST" be credible, reliable, and trustworthy, the better way to judge those things is by examining the CONTENT of those posts and comments (you'll never know how these people rated).

My favorite example is a monkey and a banana. If you gave the monkey a banana every time it hit the right keys for "R-A-T-E-D", it would soon become a Platinum member.

That said, I have to say that my own opinion of uhka tutka is high. That's not because he is a Platinum member, but rather because of the quality of his posts and evaluations.

So you happened to get this one right, but your assumption that he was held in high regard simply because he is a Platinum member is flawed.
[/quote]
I stand corrected. You are of course completely right, that the status 'color' does not necessarily reflect one's credibility or other qualities. In fact, I previously had read several of Uhka Tutka's comments in a few other threads. In one of those he got a rather positive reply from a reviewer I hold in high esteem, which caught my attention.

I will remember your advise to judge people by the quality of their contributions. Having said that, I think that concerning my previous posts in this thread, I can safely uphold that -even when I am unfamiliar with their other posts- all of the longer-time members who made a contribution here, are much more worthy of my respect, than those one-line poster(s) that now are banned.

I was baffled and felt uncomfortable by the fact that some people seemed to get the impression I was doubting them, whereas I was only pointing at the now banned imposters, so I corrected that. Using the term 'high status' should be seen in that context, while keeping in mind that the not abbreviated text quoted was
...ANY member with such high status NOT to be legit, or thrustworthy ;).
Except on Uhka Tutka, and a few people I know from SiteAdvisor-reviews and/or from forums, I will have to do quite some reading before I can have a better sense of the quality of some more WoT members. Until then I will follow my wont, which is giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Guest

No . . . no . . . no

Post by Guest » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:27 pm

<quote user="boonsiri">I was baffled and felt uncomfortable by the fact that some people seemed to get the impression I was doubting them, whereas I was only pointing at the now banned imposters[/quote]

I was not referring to any thing you said about your "list", but rather just making a general caution.

<quote user="boonsiri">Until then I will follow my wont, which is giving people the benefit of the doubt.
[/quote]

Just be aware that there are elevated risks with that approach.


alphacentauri
Posts: 3291
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:52 pm

RE: suremoving.com

Post by alphacentauri » Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:10 pm

While activity is not equal to reliability, it's harder to get to platinum without getting banned -- or at least noticed by other forum members -- if you're truly untrustworthy.

Guest

RE: suremoving.com

Post by Guest » Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:37 pm

<quote user="alphacentauri">it's harder to get to platinum without getting banned[/quote]

Disagree

<quote user="alphacentauri">or at least noticed by other forum members -- if you're truly untrustworthy.
[/quote]

Agree


Guest

RE: suremoving.com

Post by Guest » Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:58 pm

<quote user="boonsiri">I will have to do quite some reading before I can have a better sense of the quality of some more WoT members.[/quote]

Take it from me, that will take some time. (In fact, I'm still at it myself.) And when you think you've finally made it, some trusted member suddenly goes nuts and shatters whatever you think you know. But I'm sure you'll be able to separate the regular crazies from the untrustworthy oddballs pretty soon. ~smiles~

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests