I just recently passed up my 100th MHO in my GAG carreer (I have exactly 103 now) and I've only been on here for five months, so that's impressive. My MHO ratio is 103 out of 779 "Opinions' that have been chosen for MHO (13%.)
Anyway, as most of you know, I write very long, detailed AND helpful "Opinions." With that being said, I'm under the impression that if I just wrote long and detailed responses, whether they were accurate, relevent OR helpful, I would still get a MHO. I think most people look at the length of a response and choose it for MHO, regardless of what it says (they probably don't even read it.)
I think this is stupid. I agree with quality over quantity (I can work both at the same time.) I personally don't choose MHO's on their length.
What do you people think?
- Yes, most people choose a MHO based solely on the length of the "Opinion"Vote A
- No, most people don't choose a MHO based solely on the length of the "Opinion"Vote B
- It's about 50/50, some people do, some don't.Vote C
Most Helpful Guy
People typically chose the MHO of the person you typically agrees with the QA. I honestly feel most QAs are just looking for answers they want to hear. You can have a "Why are all women gold diggers?" as a question and they'll be tons of people saying they're not but if you simply answer "Because all girls just want money" the bitter guy asking the question will nominate that as the MHO. It's not a good system in my opinion.
Lengthy opinions can also work against you if the guy/girl does not have a lot of patience and especially if it is an answer they don't wish to hear. So if you have some girl posting about how she's on and off with an abusive ex with the excuse of "but I love him..." even though you'll have a bunch of people saying "avoid him and report him" if 1 person says "give him another chance" she'll likely nominate that as the MHO and go back with him because she wasn't really looking for advice but moreso validation as to what she wanted.0