>You have, and it's much appreciated. Even more so, the publication of UT content as a web service registered on UDDI! I am not complaining about the services I get here, more about the behavior that came with the initial onslaught of the point system. I already said that things have certainly simmered down. I apologize for not being clear enough.

I saw the terminology used and wanted to clarify more on it as as per the replies you already got, some users took the occasion to take opportunity on it to find lacks on UT and this is what needed to be adjusted and some were missing some facts.

>That stated, I am not a big fan of rating systems in general for on-line communities. It's easy enough to see who's got a clue and who doesn't, and we're here to help and get help, not prove how smart we are so that other people can bow and scrape. I think that the community has spoken about that already with the ratings for downloads; I'd be uncomfortable panning someone else's contribution because I see it as not terribly useful or trivial; it might well not be the case for the next guy who looks at it, and what I think shouldn't affect his judgement. The fact that the community has avoided using it I think speaks eloquently to the issue; either they share my sentiments, or it's too difficult to apply ratings and comments to downloads.

As you may have seen by now in my other reply, this is mostly to recognize valuabe messages to the community. So, you are right, I am and all others as well. We know what this is all about but the community asked for a way to mark valuable messages and we answered to the request.

>Making the message base available for query through web services is a phenomenal idea; it more than justifies the cost (and any added cost) of PUTM membership, and lets those of us who'd rather find an already existing answer quickly rather than repeat the same, old, tired question and waiting for an old hand to repeat their already well-stated solution. I believe in RTFM, and now, STFMB (Search The Freakin' Message Base!) as a general approach.

Yes, some will make good use of it.

>I think we've got a good tool with the IRC channel; the Wednesday Night series has been a good success, and describing it to some of the MVPs in other arenas than VFP sparked some real interest. I took the liberty of suggesting that a few of them check out the format used here. The study group model of preparation for the cert exams also sparked some interest (thanks to Nancy, Cindy, Evan and everyone else who made that work!) and having an open IRC chat area available for forming ad-hoc, informal virtual study groups is a real benefit to the community, if we'd just take advantage of the opportunity.

Yes, it went well. I was not involved it but heard a lot of good comments.

>Please realize I am not dissatisfied with UT; I'm a bit disheartened by the -initial- response to the point system by part of the community. I am aware that it builds interest in the board, and it is your puppy, so run it like you see it working as a business. It's still the best vehicle around for support in the VFP community, and hopefully, some of the other areas will see an increase in traffic built off the feedback from the Fox MVPs at the Summit. We're the example of what works, folks.

Thanks for the feedback