Nadya;

Thank you for your reply. I should have pointed out that my examples were exceptions rather than the norm. No system is perfect unless you designed it! :) (You is in the third person in this case.)

If you can please 51% of the people on any given topic you have done well! A higher percentage is icing on the cake!

Tom

>>Renior;
>>
>>One take I have on this is the UT is basically a place where people ask questions. That seems to be the primary driving force for its existence. So, I think that people that create a question should get one point for each question and no more regardless! I have created a few questions (ASP) and never received a reply. Others have that same experience. So no one read it, had the answer or bothered to make an attempt to assist.
>>
>>So, one star (silver) for creating a question regardless of whether it was answered correctly or at all.
>>
>>Perhaps we should give a gold star (one only) to everyone who attempts to answer a question. Since it has been stated that some three stars are awarded to solutions that are not necessarily the best, then that would alleviate the question of “which is the correct answer”!
>>
>
>Hi Tom,
>
>How about the answer: "I feel you pain. Sorry don't know how to help." Will it be granted a star? :)
>
>I think, we can go with 3 stars for Help and 1 for assignation. If the question was not answered at all, or doesn't have any messages marked as Help/Answer, this question could be marked with a silver star...
>
>
>>I have seen a few questions answered correctly and stars awarded to another person. The other person answered later with the same or similar answer. So why not take the subjectivity out of assignment of stars? After all, how many programmers will agree what the “correct answer” is? How does the person who created the question know that he/she has received the “correct answer”?
>
>Well, it's the system based on human factor. I don't think, we need to exclude it. I think, however, that we can allow two or more messages be marked as answer (10 stars). For instance, if there is a simple question, it usally has lots of responses within minutes. Usually the fastest got 10 stars, others don't have a single...
>
>>
>>I have seen a few complex questions answered and a minute or two later that person has three stars. Later the person who asked the question comes back, “No, that did not work”. At least people could try out a suggestion before agreeing that is the answer! Gosh! Does that mean we have to test? :)
>
>Well, the answer could be unmarked lately :)
>
>>
>>Another scenario I have seen is points are awarded (three stars) for an incorrect or let us say not the best answer, and another person later defines the correct answer, and receives no stars.
>>
>
>That's again a human factor. I also have seen several good answers, which were not rewarded. For few cases I even wrote a private e-mail to the person, who started the thread, pointing out to the system...
>
>
>>Well, I hate to open a kettle of fish as you never know what you may find inside or smell, but anyway those are my thoughts at this time regarding this portion of the subject. :)
>>
>>Tom
>
>They are indeed good points :) If this system is not completely automated, we would have cases like you and I described. If it would, it lost all its good value...
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Tom,
>>>
>>>Did you mean to say that the originator would get one star for the first time they assign stars to a thread? I don't think everyone who originates a question should get a star unless they assign some.
>>>
>>>Renoir
>>>
>>>
>>>>Concerning part two:
>>>>
>>>>The originator gets 1 point for creating a question and a Silver Star to differentiate it from Gold Stars. No additional points are given to the originator! If no answer or response is given to the originators question a point is still awarded.
>>>>
>>>>Tom