Meta Question

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

Are you for or against having a limit of lurve you can give each specific user?

Asked by Self_Consuming_Cannibal (4236 points ) January 7th, 2013

Why or why not?

This isn’t a complaint, I’m just wondering how you fluther friends feel about this.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

28 Answers

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

You know, I feel like I can go either way. This is prob one of the only things where I’m like, ‘meh, these are the rules of the site, whatever.’

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Well, sometimes it would be nice if I could award more lurve to people when they’ve really written an excellent post, but I think it could also very easily be abused. Very easily.

Shippy's avatar

Not sure what you mean by this question?

Yetanotheruser's avatar

I am against any lurve limitations, except in the case of abuse.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

@Shippy The OP is asking if we agree or disagree with the limit on lurve distribution. Like giving people GAs. After they’ve received 100 total points from you, you can still give them a GA, but they can’t get any more lurve points from you.

Shippy's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate Oh OK! I was not aware of that. I guess it can work for or against you. I know some give lurve to their mates, just because they lurve them. Which is OK.. But some do put hard work into their questions and maybe deserve a bit more lurve. Interesting though I didn’t know.

marinelife's avatar

I like it. It keeps it from being a popularity contest.

wundayatta's avatar

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. I don’t think people abuse lurve. I don’t think they just give it to friends, and if they do, they don’t do it that much. I was wondering what would happen if they raised the limit to 200.

I guess I don’t think it would make any difference. Yes, we’d have higher lurve scores, but what would that mean? What does lurve mean, anyway? I don’t think our position relative to anyone else would change. We’d just have a few thousand more. Maybe two thousand or three thousand more. If everyone bumps up three thousand, what difference does that make? We all go up pretty much in lockstep. Some of us would go up more and others less, pretty much we would stay in the same relationship to each other.

So raising the lurve limit wouldn’t do anything noticable.

The other option would be to remove the limit entirely, and that would allow people to go on lurve fests, finding every question of someone and giving them more and more lurve. There could be campaigns to make someone leap past 30k or whatever. Or people could pick favorites and try to raise them higher.

But would they? Do people take lurve seriously enough to truly game it? Everyone would know who was being pumped up. Would an artificially high lurve score persuade others, perhaps newbies, that this person was really well respected, when everyone else knows they just went through a pump campaign?

I seriously doubt it. I don’t think jellies are like that. Maybe one or two would want to, but not enough make that much of a difference.

So in the end, I don’t think removing the lurve cap would make any difference either. And if nothing would make a difference, then where is the motivation for change?

Coloma's avatar

I’m against a cap.
I hate that there is a max out when you really want to show your support for a GA.

Shippy's avatar

@Coloma But it will still show a GA on the question?

FutureMemory's avatar

@Shippy Their GA score for that post will increase, just not their overall lurve score.

I say it’s fine the way it is now. It encourages people to interact with newbies, rather than just their original circle of acquaintances from when they first joined.

Shippy's avatar

^^Well that is fine by me I don’t care what my score it. I just feel good if someone appreciated my answer . I agree also with what you say, we should spread ourselves all over loll.

PhiNotPi's avatar

Actually, there is one part of the lurve cap that I absolutely think needs to be abolished. Say that you have written a very good post that gets 10 GAs. The first five GAs are from people who have already maxed out on you, the later five GAs are from people who haven’t. How much lurve would you earn from that post? Most people think 25, but the answer is zero. Only the first five GAs count. This means that if you are maxed out on a user, and you give them a GA, you are actually penalizing that person’s lurve score by preventing the later GAs from being counted.

I’m fine with a limit of 25 lurve per answer, but the fact that it you can only earn the 25 lurve from the first five GAs is not fair.

syz's avatar

It’s not obvious unless you’re a moderator, but some (few) folks do try their best to abuse the sytem (creating alternate accounts to reward themselves with lurve, for example). As frustrating as it is, the limits serve a purpose.

I’ve never understood why since lurve has no actual value.

ucme's avatar

Doesn’t bother me either way, I value the banter & laughs I have with fellow funsters far higher than any ultimately pointless numbers game.

dxs's avatar

I don’t understand the reason as to why you can only get a certain amount of lurve for GAs and GQs. Is there an explanation? How come if I like an answer that already has 7 GAs, my 8th GA will not count? Does it have to do with conformity?

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

@PhiNotPi You know, I never seem to remember that. I don’t like that either.

Sunny2's avatar

^^^ Me too!

PhiNotPi's avatar

What @syz said is also very true. There are several people who create alternate accounts and give themselves lurve.

Also, (speaking to everyone) please don’t game the system. Moderators have special tools that can tell us where people get their lurve, as well as tools to detect alternate accounts.

ucme's avatar

Creating an alternate account to give yourself lurve is akin to kissing your reflection in the mirror & growing a boner…truly pathetic.

Bellatrix's avatar

Sadly, some people take ‘lurve’ way more seriously than they should as @syz and @PhiNotPi have said.

I agree with @PhiNotPi qualms about the GA issue but it is what it is and it’s not going to change so there isn’t much point me even bothering about it.

hearkat's avatar

I think the per user cap is fine. I just don’t understand the point of having only the first 5 Great Answers count towards the Lurve total.

blueiiznh's avatar

I am ok with a cap per user and cap per question.
I however do not understand the reasoning behind the 1st 5 GA.

augustlan's avatar

I’m not a fan of the first five GQ cap, but I am solidly behind the per member cap. You’d be surprised how often people try to game the system.

zensky's avatar

Whenever you get fed up with the whole lurve crap – just refresh and start over.

jrpowell's avatar

Since everyone plays by the same rules I don’t mind. You can still calculate a good approximation of yours if you want.

1209 pages of Lurve

25 listings per page * 4 to account for variations with visiting days in a row and added to a fluther.

25*4*1209=120900

Leanne1986's avatar

I’m for it or, at the very least, not bothered by it. I am not to worried about my overall lurve figure, I am more concerned about my questions and answers being acknowledged as decent enough for someone to give them lurve even if they don’t get added to the overall score.

Jeruba's avatar

I’m in favor of leaving a good system alone.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther