OMNI would be "the" place to test it where it isn't a safe forum. :)

Here's what I posted in the private forum about that:

If the other TalkBoard members would prefer to go directly to the trial by fire, I would support that. I just think working out any glaring problems in Trip Reports first is a safer way to proceed. But you are absolutely correct that we need the trial by fire at some point.

I understand that some people are certain the feature will have no value. What I have trouble understanding is some people also are so sure of their assessment that they oppose a trial to gather more information, information which could surprise all of us.

Well one of my concerns is that the button will make Flyertalk into more of a popularity contest. I think an airline forum might sharpen my fears without showing me the button's usefulness. That seems to be less of an issue in hotel forums and travel safety & security though so I'd be more inclined to start it there.

I'm pretty sure I'm being lumped in here, and now I see why. Upthread, I said that I opposed this in any form. What I meant was that I oppose the reader feedback mechanism in any form. If folks want to implement some kind of "trial" (assuming that it is not cumbersome), I would not object.

While I don't think FT needs any kind of "reader feedback" mechanism, if that's what the overwhelming majority of FTers want, I would not oppose simply because of my own thoughts on the matter.

Would it be possible, perhaps via a site-wide announcement from the CD, to conduct a poll of FT users on whether this feature would be wanted? This thread and the other one are just a very small sample of FT membership.

I am usually in favor of a poll.

While not a perfect mechanism for gauging what members of FlyerTalk want, it does give a quick visual idea on helping to decide how to proceed, in my opinion...

A poll is a good idea.

Bolding mine: Agreed ^ and how does the like/helpful button stay honest? Or in other words, what's to stop someone from liking/helfulling a post "just because they wanted to (or even if the post content is flat out wrong and thus not helpful). What does that do for folks who see a post marked as liked/helpful where it's obviously not helpful?

Assuming members actually participate in the poll and read this (and the "informative button" threads" as opposed to posting "hey, I just noticed this button thingy! When did that happen" ;)

Bolding mine: What I have trouble with is a proposal which folks are hellbent on pushing thru and then lo and behold, there's a lot of opposition to it so let's take the easy way out and try and sneak it in via a back/side or lower traffic door as imho, THAT is taking the easy way out. Now for sake of argument, let's say the trial gets moved, seconded voted on and passed-is there a time limit as to "the trial"*, how do you propose closing the trial because it didn't work, how do you prose to roll it out if the trial succeeds? I personally think that hoemwork should be done by the folks who want to see this happen and not put F/t'ers in as the beta testers**. And as I posed above, how does the like/helpful button stay honest? Or in other words, what's to stop someone from liking/helfulling a post "just because they wanted to (or even if the post content is flat out wrong and thus not helpful). What does that do for folks who see a post marked as liked/helpful where it's obviously not helpful?


*We could ask CMK10 ;)

**COdbaUA has done and is notorious for doing that and some of us know how that works out ;)

How does one decide if the trial is successful or a failure? Who decides that?

Either the community director or the TalkBoard of this year or next. Probably the CD since she has a more complete picture. However the TalkBoard isn't approving expansion until after hearing from the CD and voting on a new proposal.

As to goalie's request for a time limit on the test I don't object to that if the other TalkBoard members prefer it that way.

goalie would you prefer a two phase test or a single trial by fire? I don't mind that two phases will take longer but i suppose there is entertainment value in a quick and spectacular failure. :o

Well I figure we won't really know that until we see the data. How often it's used, how it's used, user response to it etc. We could set up a poll afterwards perhaps.

And btw, to Goalie, one of my suggestions was not allowing people to use the "Like" feature unless they met similar qualifications to posting in OMNI/CC. I figured that might help a little.

As to goalie's other request to set out a rollout plan, that's premature. With images we had plenty of concerns and no such plan. It was step by step as I recall. In that case results were surprisingly trouble-free. I hope for that outcome but nobody knows yet. The current TalkBoard should not pretend it can tie the hands of future TalkBoards or the Community Director who will have better information after any trial.

So in summary ideally it will work like images did. Time will tell.

CMK10 I intend to poll TalkBoard members on each feature and put the most favored features together before voting on anything.

By the way regardless of whether anything happens on this idea I hope this thread serves as a good example of how to take our time developing the best available consensus. That's a large part of why I'm doing this on the public forum almost exclusively. What you see here is very nearly exactly what normally happens in the private forum.

So, you don't have an idea of what qualifies as a success or a failure, nor do you have a metric that will define either? Speaking for the entire TalkBoard about approving or vetoing expansion is a little far-reaching, isn't it?
Again, so you don't have a plan for any of this?

No. Read the working draft. If approved in that form it puts TalkBoard on record as making no recommendation about wider use of reader feedback. In other words I am speaking of a proposal in which TalkBoard will speak for itself.