Meta Question

janbb's avatar

Why aren't my lurve points being posted?

Asked by janbb (58202points) January 14th, 2009

I admit it, I’m a overachiever. I’ve had about 4 GAs in the last two days, but only 5 points were added to my score. What’s up with that? Andrew? Ben?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

34 Answers

dalepetrie's avatar

I ran into that too, and asked, and the deal is this. They limit the # of points you can get from any particular user. I’m not sure if it’s 100 lurve or what, but let’s say it is, so if a user has given you lurve 20 times, the 21st time and every subsequent time they give you lurve, it doesn’t add to your total. It gets to the point where when you’ve got as much lurve as I do, the vast majority of the lurve you get doesn’t count towards your total. I figured I’d be the fastest person ever to the 10k club, but once I hit about 4k, my lurve accrual slowed dramatically even though I was getting as much lurve as ever.

EmpressPixie's avatar

You are getting TOO MUCH lurve! Or at least too much lurve from the same people. It’s a bummer. Your lurve really slows at some point.

janbb's avatar

That doesn’t seem fair, but thanks for the answers, dale and empress.

gailcalled's avatar

A friend of mine once said that “If life were fair, we’d be eating garbage in Bangladesh.” That has helped keep things in perspective for me.

EmpressPixie's avatar

It stops people from (I can’t believe I’m saying this) gaming lurve. Despite the fact that lurve has no real world value, people might try to game it if they could and this stops them.

wundayatta's avatar

Well, the way I figure it, it means we have to always be attracting new people to our answers, if we want lurve, for they are the only ones who can give it to us. I’d love to know who I’ve maxed out on. It would show me who I respect the most. I mean, I have an idea, but I don’t know if it would be confirmed by my lurving.

I do wonder something else. Does good question lurve max out, too?

dalepetrie's avatar

Point gaming certainly is the case over at Assville, er I mean Askville. Not sure why “gold gaming” is such a big deal over there when the one stated purpose for it may never even happen. But I’ll tell the story because it’s a perfect example of why this helps avoid conflict.

Here’s what they did over at Askville. In 2007 when they unveiled the site and the concept of earning what were then called coins, they said that they could be used at this upcoming site called Questville where there would be new ways to play and interact, but they never said what Questville was. Then throughout 2007, every time you logged in it said that Questville was coming soon. Then they said by the end of 2007. At the end of 2007 they changed the name of coins to “gold” and let people turn in some of their gold for Amazon swag and gift cards, but it was limited to one of each item offered, and of course you lost your ranking on the leader board if you cashed in (because they also are very big on who’s earned the most this week and of all time). Then early 2008 they said they wouldn’t be focusing much on Askville throughout 2008, so that they could develop Questville and unveil it in 2008.

2008 came and went and no Questville, and they then said they were now delaying it indefinitely. In the meantime, because the “gold” 1) had the potential to be worth something someday, 2) had actually held a monetary value for a very short period of time in 2007, and 3) became an indicator of your status or popularity that was highlighted on the home page leader board, egos got huge and people began to war for those top slots.

And just to add an interesting wrinkle to the whole thing, there the more experience you have in a topic, the more a good rating is worth to you. So the more points you have, the more quickly you earn new points, which is exactly the opposite of here, and this leads to even more incentive to game the system.

Now, these gold which people have literally gone to war over, are essentially worthless with no prospect of ever being worth anything, but yet there’s still a fierce sense of competetition and people find all sorts of machinations to game the system. This causes great strife, which is exacerbated by those on the site who have a deep sense of fair play, because Askville has it written right into their TOS that gold gaming is not acceptable.

But, because supposedly they’re working so hard to bring Questville up, they haven’t had the time to do any sort of moderation whatsoever, they have these rules, but do no policing of them, so people try and try and try again to self-police the site, with no support from the ptb, and after months of brewing things come to a head. Finally when a really bad issue comes forth, the mods are FORCED to step in and do something about it, but by that time, all the people who have been beating their heads against a brick wall trying to get ANYONE to help them have become frustrated and have essentially gotten in repeated flame wars with the offenders. So, because these accusations are hard to prove several months after the fact, all the mods see in their desire to restore order as quickly as possible is that it takes 2 (or in some cases 17) to tango, and everyone gets suspended or reprimanded with equal force.

So, even though I’d love to have all my lurve count (I have no idea where I’d be, 10, 15, maybe 20k lurve by now…everyone else would too, and not only would the number lose it’s relative meaning, but it would then lead to those with huge egos attempting to break the 50k barrier…a lot of “you give me lurve and I’ll give you lurve” going on among those with the most lurve (or even those who just want a little more than they have now.

If you ask me, this is a far better setup, and I’m fully on board with limiting how much any one person can give you…they can still register their lurve for your question, but it just doesn’t count towards you total. And now when I get to 10k, it will be incredibly meaningful and I will know that a large number of people voluntarily give me lurve, and not just the few who like everything I have to say.

EmpressPixie's avatar

Agreed with Dale. This is the better set up.

I’ll also say that never having implied real world value for the lurve, I think, makes people less likely to compete over it. Quest gold was worth one cent for a while and it was strongly implied that it would give you a leg up in Questville when that debuted. Lurve has never been anything other than lurve. In doing that, there’s never been any weird need for extra lurve.

asmonet's avatar

I also agree with Dale, once I hit 5K my gains in lurve leveled off a bit. For every 8–10 GA’S I get +5. :-(

Sueanne_Tremendous's avatar

woah…look at Asmonet…6666…and i can’t do a thing about since I’ve over lurved her

janbb's avatar

Oh – Askville sounds awful. Believe me, I’m not that competitive. I just get a kick out of seeing my points go up. It would be fun to see who had maxed out on giving you lurve points, but I can understand that we don’t want to get cliquish or have things become a popularity contest. Maybe the “maxed out” period could only last for a few months?

@gailcalled – Your point about fairness is well-taken, but it doesn’t mean we can’t strive for greater fairness. Not as in lurve points necessarily but I’m hoping it will begin on January 20th again in America.

gailcalled's avatar

@Janbb: Amen, sister.

Snoopy's avatar

@daloon “I’d love to know who I’ve maxed out on. It would show me who I respect the most.”

So….you don’t respect people unless they agree w/ you….?

EmpressPixie's avatar

@Snoopy: You only lurve people you agree with?

Snoopy's avatar

@EmpressPixie No…I lurve for whatever is a good answer.

Let me restate what I was trying to say….

@daloon So if someone doesn’t feel a particular post is lurve-worthy, then you don’t respect them….?

I guess what I am getting at is that if someone does or doesn’t give me lurve has no bearing to me on what I think about them or what they have to say….they are separate items.

@EP Thank you for making me clarify myself (well, I hope I did anyway….)

EmpressPixie's avatar

@Snoopy: I think he meant he wished he could see who it was worthless to click the button for because it no longer added to their total. It was about him giving lurve, not them giving him lurve.

Snoopy's avatar

@EmpressPixie oooooooooooooooh.

My apologies, daloon.

this would be so much easier if we were all chatting over beers, in a bar

wundayatta's avatar

Yes, EP has it right.

Although, even if it were the other way around, I don’t see where you get the idea about agreement from.

I don’t know how it would work, because I can’t force people to give me lurve, but assuming I could…. no that doesn’t work.

Look, I don’t respect everybodies thinking equally. I know who I respect more than others, but I don’t know if my lurve reflects that (I don’t always remember to give it). However, just because I don’t give someone lurve, doesn’t mean I disrespect them. Lurve, for me, is standing out from all the other posts.

Agreement may have something to do with it, but that is related to analytical capability. If people reason well, I believe they will end up at the same position that I’m in. I’ve been called a lot of names for being “prejudiced” that way (I can’t imagine having a Republican as a friend—which is not the same thing as saying I won’t talk to them or be civil to them). In my mind, a person’s political positions are a fair way of crediting them or not.

bythebay's avatar

As an aside and off topic; is it just me or are all Republicans maligned here on a daily basis? I was enjoying your answer daloon and then I get totally discredited at the end because of my voters registration card?

IMHO, if you choose your friends primarily because of their political registrations, I find that sad. People are far more and far deeper than that (most of them); my dearest friend in the world campaigned for Obama, I don’t love her any less or disrespect her in any way. Aren’t we allowed to view things differently and not be castigated on a daily basis? This is getting old. I voted for Bush, I was not his adviser. I’ve also been a registered Republican for almost 20 years – should I lie to you all and tell you differently to gain your respect?

I’m getting the feeling that nothing else you say here on Fluther really matters if you’re not a Dem. The funny thing is, I don’t insult any Dem. here when they shout their pride from the rooftop; I respect their rights and their opinions. Just like I don’t insult the Atheists, or Jews, or Agnostics or Gays because I don’t share their life choices, I wouldn’t expect to be vilified on such an enlightened sight based on my choices. It’s funny how GOS was crucified for her comment about “hating” obese people; is what’s happening here to Republicans any different? Again, apologies for being off topic.

janbb's avatar

@bythebay Very good point. I, for one, will keep it in mind for the future. Although I am an ardent Democrat and delighted about Obama’s win, I try to respect others’ rights to their opinions.

A good reminder!

bythebay's avatar

@janbb: Thanks. I’m really not trying to be snarky, but it’s just reached a point of ridiculousness. I’ve said it before, Obama will be my President,too. I support him and have great hope in his abilities.

Snoopy's avatar

@bythebay No, it isn’t just you….I notice it too….

I had hoped that once the election was over, the rancor against all things Republican would dial down, but no. I am hopeful that after 1/20/09, things will quiet….

I often hear negative political things about Dems and think….if that had been a Republican, there would be a huge hubub on here…but there is nothing but crickets chirping.

@janbb My apologies too for the thread deviation.

wundayatta's avatar

Warning! Off-topic response to bythebay.

I totally respect everyone’s right to have an opinion. I think you should respect my choice of friends. I enjoy reading what you have to say, bythebay and I think you are wise in many subjects. Unfortunately, being a Republican says something about your world view that I have a hard time figuring out how we could be friends.

I could enjoy your company, but there would always be that point of mistrust. Choosing a party, and choosing who you vote for are not trivial things. They are, in my opinion, one of the most important things you can do in the public sphere.

I respect you. I respect your opinion. I enjoy reading what you have to say. We might even agree on some things. But I could not get close enough to a person who holds so many views that I believe are killing people in our nation and around the world to be friends.

I’m sorry if you feel maligned or bashed. I don’t know how what I said made you feel that way. If you could show me how to say what I think without making you feel unwanted or unappreciated, I would do that. I respect you a lot. What I know about you is very likeable. However, there is an awful lot I don’t know about you, especially the stuff that makes you decide to be a Republican, party that loves greed and really wants to stick it to women, gays, and poor people.

Again, sorry for being off-topic. Anyone care to start a topic where this can be discussed?

bythebay's avatar

@daloon: Thank you for respecting my right to have an opinion. It’s not my goal to be universally understood and revered, just respected. Likewise, I don’t feel like any of us should have to qualify our choices in order to be treated like trustworthy human beings. Of course there is a lot you don’t know about me, and that is your misfortune. But again, this is just an internet site and it really doesn’t matter, does it?

wundayatta's avatar

@bythebay: I’m not averse to learning more about you. In fact, there are many people here that I could say that about. Usually what we know about each other barely touches the surface. Still, some affiliations say a lot about a person.

Snoopy's avatar

@daloon I don’t know about that….funny thing is, I am a registered Republican. However, if you broke things down by issues there are several things where I would be considered falling on the far liberal side of the fence. I have voted for Democrats on several occasions and I have voted as most Democrats do on several issues that have been on the ballot.

It depends on the candidate and the issue. I don’t always vote the ticket or always agree w/ the party….

wundayatta's avatar

@snoopy: I think I would probably be considered pretty far to the progressive side of the political spectrum. Socialism and Marxism looked pretty good to me when I was in college. Things are a bit more complicated than I thought back then, and I understand that is true for people on the right, as well as for progressives.

However, to be a friend with someone, I have to feel very comfortable with them. We have to see eye to eye. Otherwise we’d be arguing all the time, and I don’t enjoy that. We’d be arguing about things that matter, and I would always feel like they don’t get it, and that would be terribly frustrating. I don’t know, can other people be friends with people whose views they think are, at best, very misguided, or at worst dehumanizing? I don’t think so.

I have no idea how Mary Matalin and James Carville can get along. They are probably both opportunists who don’t take ideology or ethics seriously.

Anyway, Republicans can surely be complicated. They might be Libertarians who feel like they don’t really have a home elsewhere. Clearly Republicans don’t follow their own rhetoric, so perhaps they don’t truly believe what they say they believe. Maybe all politicians are opportunists. I certainly know of many corrupt Democrats, and they turn my stomach, too. I’d never be friends with someone like that, either.

This is kind of frustrating right now, because I used to work with Robert Creamer, the husband of Cong. Jan Schakowsky, back in the day, as they say, before they had made it. Bob, it turned out, did some illegal check-kiting stuff in order to raise money for Illinois Public Action, the organization I was working for. I was there on a cross-train, for a month, to help them do a better job of canvassing, and I stayed at their house. IPAC always had money problems, but it’s terrible that they had to use such schemes.

Unfortunately, he’s not the only one I know amongst the progressives who has played fast and loose with what I consider to be ethical behavior. They all say they do it because their hearts are in the right place. Wow. I guess I’m not sold on the idea that ends justify the means. Integrity is important, too, and that includes ideological integrity. As far as I know, it’s awful hard to take the spots off a leopard. I don’t want to be the antelope sitting next to that nice-looking kitty.

dalepetrie's avatar

I’ll try to interject some perspective into this direction the thread has taken.

Before 2000, I didn’t even really pay attention to what political party a person was when talking to them. I remember that a couple of guys who were good friends of mine at one point or another in my life, I subsequently found out that they were Republicans, again prior to 2000. It surprised me a little bit because my values are pretty far left and we seemed to in general agree on a lot of things. But my friendships were based on common interest in a lot of things, and politics was not necessarily one of them, so it was probably more about separating the person from his beliefs.

But I’ve been used to doing that…religion is a prime example. We live in a Christian nation…now there are certainly PLENTY of people with other religious beliefs out there, but I was conditioned to pretty much expect, at least where I grew up, that if I talked to any random person, he or she was far more likely than not a Christian. Whereas I have never personally subscribed to any religious ideology…I tend to think much of religion is based in outdated superstition. But I also have always felt that it is important to be respectful, not simply because I was outnumbered in my belief, but because it is utterly egotistical to think that I know what is or is not out there any more than those who are religious and believe they know what is or is not out there. I guess my philosophy has always been, no one knows for sure, I believe in what can be demonstrated to be true, and everything else is a theory…but that doesn’t make me any more “right” than anyone else.

So, as they have always said, the two things you should never talk about are politics and religion, and I’ve kind of defined my life by that, because if I find out that a person believes something different than I do, I do not know what their thinking, their values, their analysis (or lack thereof) has told them to lead them to believe something I do not. Now I will never shy away from a fact based debate, but in 2000 something happened that really had never been part of the whole don’t ask/don’t tell environment of politics for me.

No matter what you think about Bush, he ran one of the most divisive campaigns in history in 2000, and we’ve come to see the power of Karl Rove in molding perspective. What Bush understood and was unapologetic about implementing was that the truth and facts are less important than perceptions (which is indeed the first rule of politics), and unlike others before him who had shown some restraint in molding perceptions, Bush essentially created the reality he wanted people to have in their minds and did and said whatever it took to make people believe it. Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes accepted as fact. Now we all have an amazing ability for self delusion and I can imagine that there might be more than one Republican disagreeing with that right now, and that’s fine, but clearly even if you don’t agree, one thing Bush did do that I think we can all agree that he did do was to forge his own path without worrying about his critics. Some call that headstrong leadership, I call that turning a deaf ear to the concerns of half the country, and I think it’s led to this sea change we saw in the 2008 election.

But my point is, rather than foster any sense of, “we’re going to discuss issues, hash them out, look for perspective from all sides and then make a decision,” we got a sense of “us vs. them” from Bush and co. The political campaign was certainly run like that, and even in office we heard rhetoric like “you’re either with us or against us.” And when it came to issues we could all basically agree on, that was one things, but so many issues that involve empirical analysis, thousands of years of scientific discovery, pure facts and reason…issues where the vast majority of people of any political stripe could see that science has proven x, y and z, well decisions were being made without regard to evidence and fully within the precepts of a narrow set of beliefs dictated by a small core of devout, evangelical Christians. And because it was the path our fearless leader forged, and because the Republican mind tends to value loyalty above all else, we got into a situation where often times the right was on the wrong side of logic, reason and fact, but was on the right side of power. And as the “you’re either with us or against us” mentality eminated from the top down, it permeated our culture, and forced many Republicans to abandon reason while leaving many Democrats appalled at the degree to which reason had been abandoned in favor of ideology.

This made those political issues rise to the forefronts of the minds of many liberals (outrage will do that to you), and therefore it became an almost all consuming passion that edged out many of the more trivial things on which we might have forged friendships in the past. And after 8 years, it reached the point where the average liberal had been disabused by so many conservatives who had no facts on their side, but who did have well structured talking points and the support of the powers that be. So it became hard for people such as daloon to ever even see themselves being able to actually be “friends” with anyone who represented that which had been such an affront to their sense of logic and fair play for so many years.

But let me tell you another story about something that happened in this timeframe. Just as I was quite vocal throughout this latest political contest and just as I fought back arguments which did not have any logic or reason behind them..I did the same, but to a lesser degree in 2003/2004 leading up to Bush’s second “win”. And I got into an online disagreement with someone who was conservative, but what stunned me was that this guy was intelligent, he had well formed and thought out opinions, he had REASONS to believe what he did, and he articulated them well. And I looked back at some of the people I have known in the past who were Republicans with whom I’d had no problem prior to 2000. And I looked at myself…at the time believeing much like daloon does now that I don’t know if I could ever make friends with a Republican and good riddance to the few I’d known in the past whom I happened to have fallen out of touch with in recent years (not because of political ideology, but in my view, my concerns had matured and I was no longer in the market for relationships based on the superficial things we’d made friends over in the past). But this guy blew me away. And ultimately I did not agree with him, but I understood why he thought the way he did, and I respected his opinion. And I thought, this is not someone I could hate or even dislike…this is someone I could actually have a rational discussion with, and we could vehemently disagree, but still get along.

So when 2007 rolled around and I immediately jumped on the Obama bandwagon well before the bandwagon even existed and everything thought Hillary was going to win, because I’d listened to the man and read his books and thought, “this man needs to be President and I will do everything I can to make sure this happens…”, I began going on sites like this one and interjecting myself into political discussions. And for every 5 to 10 partisan right wing idiots whose idea of debate was garnered from listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and O’Reilly (shout them down and hang up on them if they start to make sense), I would encounter one intellectually honest person who held certain beliefs and was willing to defend them intelligently from the right. And these people I would not every be able to actively dislike.

So though I can understand the mindset of not being able to be friends with a Republican…having been there myself, I think that’s an overlysimplistic way to look at the world, and I think we just need to heal a bit, and we will once again be able to be friends with our political enemies.

wundayatta's avatar

@dalepetrie: are you actually friends with any Republicans?

The other problem here is that we haven’t defined what friend means to all of us. It could be that we have very different standards. Someone might believe that no one they had not met in person could be a friend. Or you might believe that no one you hadn’t had a social dinner with, or who hadn’t visited your house for a social visit could be a friend.

Or you might think they aren’t a friend unless you’d be willing to turn to them if you were about to hit the gutter, and you knew they would help you. I.e., they’d do anything for you.

Certainly I can respect anyone who is principled. It’s even better if they can take an objective look at data in creating their opinions. Even people who look at things ideologically, I can respect, even though I don’t understand them. There are very few people I can’t respect, or learn something from.

But the number of people I can be friends with is extremely small. Most people I interact with fall into other categories. They can be acquaintances. People I know. People I trust. People I trust enough to share details of my life that shame me.

However, friends, for me, are a quantum leap above all that. They are people who are interesting and fun and make sense to me and actually make me believe that they like me and I can trust them with my life.

EmpressPixie's avatar

I am a crazy, ridiculous flaming liberal. I am very, very dear friends with a republican. I do not agree with many of his views, but that is not necessary for us to care for one another. It means that we argue a lot about politics, but it is friendly arguing. And in a way, we’re good enough friends that politics don’t matter as much—I know that he’s a good person, he’d do anything for me, I’d do anything for him, we just disagree about what is best to be done at times. I think it is tempting and easy to make a snap judgment based on politics and let it flavor friendship—like the number of people you’ve slept with, it says a lot about your values and what is important to you (sorry, connecting questions). However, I don’t think it is everything.

And that is why my lurve points are not being posted. Couldn’t resist it. I was very bemused earlier noting how off track this has gotten.

gailcalled's avatar

^^: What’s this got to do with love?
Darling,please, tell me something
To help me through this long dark night.

dalepetrie's avatar

I think there are different categories of friends. A couple people I’m thinking about for example…one is a guy I hung out with for about 3 years in college. We spent a lot of time together, saw him most every day, we had a great time. I never needed to turn to him, and the nature of our relationship wasn’t that deep admittedly, but I have no doubt he’d have helped me out if I needed anything and vice versa. Lost touch with him when I left college…it would be fun to chat with him again even though I know he’s a Republican, we could hang out, have a great time, have some laughs, whatever.

Another friend was a very close friend of mine, we grew up together essentially, though about an hour drive apart. We spent a lot of our teen years getting in trouble together. He was in my wedding. He’s a Republican. I lost touch with him for about 10 years…I knew where he was, he knew where I was…but we were both starting our lives, our families, etc., not that we disliked each other or had any sort of falling out, but just sort of didn’t focus as much on the things that had drawn us together, and sort of saw our common interests take slighly different paths. I got back in touch with him a few weeks ago, we’re already making plans to hang out and have been emailing back and forth with great regularity. I’d consider him a friend, we have both done things for each other, we just never discuss politics. I trust him, I’d be more than happy to share my views with him, even secrets, not a problem.

So, my definition would be similar, but would have an extra step. I have acquaintances…the vast majority of people I know fall into this category. They are people who I talk to occassionally, who I don’t mind spending time with, but not people whose company I’d go out of my way to attain on a regular basis…not that I don’t enjoy chatting with them, but we don’t share enough common interests to be more than acquaintances.

Friends to me are the group of people with whom I want to spend time, hang out, chat, etc. They are people I like and trust, whom I’d tell some things (but not everything) about myself. They are people whom I genuinely like, who I believe genuinely like me, and I believe they would do me a favor if I asked…maybe they wouldn’t risk their lives for me (but you know what, I know some people who are basically strangers who would risk their lives for me, just because that’s who they are and what they believe, and therefore I don’t consider that to be a valid criterion).

My final category is true friends, and yes, I might find it a bit harder to be true friends with someone if I did not share their values, and ideology does go along with values, so to that, you do have a point. But I also know enough to know that the one guy I talked about, the one I grew up with, well he WAS someone whom I considered probably my best friend at a time. He would have been my best man in fact, but we were just starting to pull apart a bit and all his time and energies were focused on his family and career and we had just been running out of common ground (though politics had nothing to do with it). Our families are also close, and he lives not that far from me, so I kind of knew his whereabouts for the last decade even if we weren’t hanging out like we used to, and honestly, not having talked to him during the Bush administration, but just knowing that he considers himself a Republican, I don’t have any basis to have a disagreement with him on those issues, and now that we’re rekindling our friendship, I am unlikely to even bring it up. But conversely, the guy I did pick as my best man, well he and I became closer and closer and he has become a “true friend”.

I guess rather than using political ideology for a litmus test, which I admit for a time I did, or using whether someone would risk their life for you (because some people may love you dearly but still be cowards), I’d use this…

“A true friend is someone who will help you move.”

Don’t know if that observation has been made before or not, but that seems to be the difference right there. If you really care about someone, you’ll help them move, if you don’t you’ll find a way to get out of it.

janbb's avatar

I feel like I started the telephone game! That’s cool. The derailment is actually mroe intersting than the original question.

bythebay's avatar

@janbb: You’re very understanding for a hijack victim! :)

Answer this question




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

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther