You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Problems/Complaints

    Let’s keep things in context

    This is in reference to this thread.


    I am forced to raise a separate thread. Well, it's easy to gag others, after you've had your say.

    You may have addressed a member in your response, but you did not keep it relevant to the Ask Expert section, you mentioned ALL the categories. You also inadvertently told a member that his contributions lack quality!

    I highlighted two comments, made by the editorial team. Statements do not always have to be black and white. When one says, we couldn't "place" anyone for an award, and the other talks about "quality", it all adds up. Needless dissection you may say, but what other explanation do you have for not finding a suitable candidate for the Article section?

    I submitted 17 articles in August and remained on top of the leaderboard in the month. Not good enough for an award! Now that you've ruled out quality, I wonder what other explanation could there be.

    It's time to say adios to the article section.
  • #649185
    Sometimes it pinches hard when we perform and that is visible and yet not rewarded. Not that one is writing for the reward, but that consistency being top of the section the author should have been considered. And I can understand 17 articles in a month is a great record in itself , and the amount of time and energy spent to carve the articles cannot be imagined nor planned by others. By the way when awards are going to be announced, the ISC must be very careful in choosing the right member, otherwise a performing member gets hurt deeply. I am with Juana in this cause, let there by deeper thinking at the ISC top brass. In this regard I was also pained the way the weekly TOW awards are being announced. Good threads goes unnoticed and the thread of non importance gets rewarded just because it attracted the particular editor. Please ponder over.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #649198
    I am sorry if my responses hurt. I apologize.
    When you make a commitment, you create hope. When you keep a commitment you create trust! ~ John C. Maxwell

  • #649252
    As per my understanding in ISC so far, I want to mention something about the awards given in ISC to its members. There are some members who are contributing excellently in their area every month and it is known very clearly that they are the numero uno there. So theoretically speaking, they should get the award every month.

    But ISC has its own system of awarding in which the top members will also get award sometimes and in between there are many good members who are also contributing quality material and they are also to be encouraged and motivated which can be only done by awarding them appropriately time to time.

    So we move ahead in that fashion and keep contributing in ISC garnering prizes in between and creating a healthy online community.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #649254
    Not only ISC everywhere, it hurts when you work hard and your hard work is un noticed and some else is rewarded.

    I am with Juana as writing 17 articles in a month needs very hard work and demands time. Not only this one has to be very creative to do that as when one starts writing articles don't get an idea easily what to write.

    I don't write articles as don't have all of the above qualities but the one has this should be appreciated and rewarded. I don't understand why she is not.


    " It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not" ... Andre Gide

  • #649287
    At times, ISC goes wrong with its decision. What I feel is - ISC wants to encourage new members to have them at ISC. This could be the simple reason why ISC doesn't find an eligible member to receive the awards. It will be wise if ISC thinks straight to award the hard working ISC members.
    If this wrong trend is followed, ISC might lose the hardworking members.

    No life without Sun

  • #649382
    It is better to speak straight here instead of avoiding the point raised by the author and other members too in the subsequent responses. The Wizard and Super contributor awards are given to the active members for their contribution during the month under consideration and preference would be given to the non-winning member during the last six months. The selection is being done in a candid way after due deliberations and the Editor announcing the awards takes much pain to alert us, remind us and reviews the nomination in consultation with ME and other editors too. Such a serious exercise is done in the backdrop. Though it is not required to explain here, I seriously felt it necessary to avoid confusion among the newbies and some other members as the issue was raised by a very senior and prominent member of the site. Having won a Star of the Year, star of the Month and Wizard awards in a couple of occasions, it is quite surprising to receive a protest like this from the author.

    As regards TOW awards pointed out in a response here, ME herself has explained how the threads get selected for an award. Moreover, the points and c.c are now at higher rates as compared to other contests and members are expected to contribute qualitative content in a creative way. While you can't say no, if I say that there is a race in this Forum to post threads and responses to garner points on daily basis as a matter of routine and expecting such threads to receive an award may not be correct. Perhaps a movie may not hit the theatre with success in terms of collections but it gets an award and it happens many a times. Same is the case with threads with good responses not winning the TOW award and those which get no attention by the members might be the winner.

    it is not appropriate to say "It will be wise if ISC thinks straight to award the hard working ISC members." As mentioned earlier, a big exercise takes place involving everyone in the team to identify the members for the awards.

    Though ME has responded to the query by the author, I responded here as I felt it would be fair on the part of the team to clear off the air and some members need not think that we are shying away from the point raised by the author.


  • #649386
    #1 – "The Wizard and…last six months."
    I met both criteria

    #2 – "…and preference would be given to the non-winning member during the last six months."
    I was given the Wizard Article section award in October 2017 and again in January 2018. What preference are you talking about?

    #3 – "Having won a Star of the Year, star of the Month and Wizard awards in a couple of occasions, it is quite surprising to receive a protest like this from the author."
    Why did you bring up the past awards given to me? My question was about the awards announced for August 2018. It is better to restrict the discussion to the specific query. When a member falters (like someone recently did in the job section), you-all do not consider the previous submissions and overlook the unintentional mistake. Instead, the team restricts the posting rights based on the current situation. Please follow similar norms in all your interactions.

    #5 – "…quite surprising to receive a protest like this from the author."
    Protest. Well, it was hardly a protest. I raised a question when the issue of 'quality' was brought up. Do you think it is fine to berate members' contributions? I raised a new thread because my comments were seen as 'needless dissection'! Well, needless, as my comments were, they still got an apology. So, do we still think they were needless?

    Moreover, my query is simple, why should it ruffle feathers? Your team ruled out quality, as being an issue, so I can rest assured that I wasn't denied an award because my contributions lacked quality. Further, you just made us aware of the '6-month preference', well, I met that criterion.

    I ignored the brusque line in the announcement thread. But, thought it necessary to intervene, when another equally curt and insensitive comment was posted in the thread. The current thread is a result of my observations being termed as 'needless dissection'.

    If, you-all don't want a flare-up then please tackle situations better and word your comments in a prudent manner. If you leave gaping holes in your clarifications, all your 'bigger exercises' appear flawed and come to notch.

    "A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak." -Michael Garrett Marino

  • This thread is locked for new responses. Please post your comments and questions as a separate thread.
    If required, refer to the URL of this page in your new post.