All due respect but, can we dial it back a notch here? I would say there's a 99.999999% chance that there is no lobbying effort. Yes, nsx wants this button, but I imagine he has better things to do with his time, as does anyone else in favor of this, then going out and lobbying people to vote for it. We're talking about a possible change to an internet bulletin board here...let's keep some perspective.

Plus, that poll can go to 60/40, or 75/25, and certain TB Members will still vote no.

Are you saying that TB Members will ignore the poll and vote the way they were going to anyway? If so, then what is the purpose of the poll? We really want your opinion {winky winky}. :confused:

While some might be PMing their FT buddies to stop by & vote a certain way, I doubt if anyone is really going out & creating new handles to do so. That's a little too black helicopter.

There's probably a way, although I'm not willing to spend much time thinking of one & IB pretty much lets FT do its own thing according to the CD. If like was being driven by IB for financial reasons, it would have been implemented a long time ago.

On a dif note, jackal had posted earlier that having a like/helpful button would get people to post more additional information/wouldn't be too lazy to post because they love the kudos that would come from a like. Interestingly enough, someone posted the opposite on the BA thread - that in the past they might contribute more or add on to what someone said, but now if they can just get by with posting like/helpful to someone they won't feel the need to provide additional information like they would have previously.

Cheers.

The poll is merely a tiny sample of people on this website. We have to vote based on what we think is best for Flyertalk. Will the votes of 500 or so be enough to change the FT experience for half a million people? Also, there's a number of responses in a separate thread in the BA forum that have to be taken into account.

From what I've seen posted on this thread, TB members are paying attention to both the thread(s) & to the poll. There are 9 TB members. Some are wildly supportive & might vote yes re: of the poll/threads; some not really that supportive & might vote no re: of the poll/threads, and some will vote based more on the poll/threads (in TB, BA & Omni). And some might think they're going to vote one way & post it & then change their mind, as discussions occur. Sometimes viewpoints change; sometimes they don't. A poll wouldn't have been created & left open for a month if it was going to be ignored. However, the poll is not the only conduit for info. There are some threads (including this one) where FTers are being asked to provide input both for & against. TB members are paying attention (from what I can tell) to BOTH the threads & to the poll.

FWIW - prior to the thread getting bumped by nsx, the like thread had been dormant for a year. When it was active a year ago, FTers were pretty evenly split 50/50 on whether they wanted like. After the thread was bumped, the input was still pretty evenly split 50/50. After the poll was created, the no's were leading the yes's until recently. But even now the two aren't that far apart. Basically there's not a clear or clamoring mandate by FTers for such a feature.

Cheers.

If we are going to conflate "like" and "helpful" then there is no point in having such a button since it becomes meaningless. On the other hand, if we are to have a "helpful" button that actually means "this post contains helpful factual information" then that could be useful, especially if there was a way to view a large thread that only showed posts rated "helpful".

I fear this poll and thread has already conflated "like" and "helpful" and hence the votes and comments are only making the issue more confusing as people are talking about different things as if they are the same.

I'd be interested in that as well.
Considering the "I have inside information," and the trial, I wouldn't be surprised.

If only there were no such thing. That said, people can say whatever they wish here absent it being a FT TOS violation -- even when the facts may point to the contrary.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with lobbying efforts, or with people registering as new members to vote, or people deciding to vote on an issue when otherwise they aren't very active on FT in terms of posting terms. It's a freely available vote opportunity for any and all registered FT accounts that aren't suspended, right?

What is "helpful" is something that varies based on opinion. Or is FT going to have a FT word police force that decides whether or not your idea of helpful is superior or inferior to someone else's idea of "helpful"? Use of "like" would include liking things that are "helpful", regardless of whether or not someone else's idea of helpful is akin to your idea of helpful or not.

It really does not matter to me whether or not FlyerTalk should have a “like” button; so my personal opinion will not be much of a factor — if at all — when voting.My personal experience in dealing with the decision makers at Internet Brands over the years suggests that that statement is indeed true.

This also brings to light another matter. If a post about attaining status is marked helpful in 2014 but the program rules change in 2015 or any subsequent time, is that post still helpful or does it fall into the misleading category? The same can be said for any manufactured spend post or credit card churning post. The rules change frequently and some posts would no longer be helpful.

Indeed. What is to be "liked"/"helpful" at one time may not be so in a different time context. Will the notations/counters be wiped out and reset after fixed periods of time? Will they be wiped out for posts edited after they were noted/counted as "liked"/"helpful".

And when what is fact can't be confirmed by someone else, does that make the fact posted less "helpful" even when it is confirmed fact by those in a position of authority or with reliable access to such authorities outside FT?

This "helpful" or "like" thing turning out to be helpful in any way other than by being a school-type popularity contest of sort or mere entertainment? I have my doubts that there is any chance of that being the general case. I expect it will just be clutter to my eyes after the novelty (of the popularity contest/games) wanes. Or can members disable this feature for their own posts, for the like/helpful counters, and for viewing "likes" if they care to do so?

True, but if there is a "helpful" button that is used to mark posts that contain helpful information (as opposed to simply posts or posters liked by someone) this could be a good step towards making FT more useful to more people. Even if old threads or old posts (e.g., more than a few years) are discounted and viewed as less helpful despite the 'helpful' button on posts.

Possibly no, in which case we're no worse off than now. But there is a chance that it could be a step forward, especially if combined with a way to view threads that only shows such posts.

Obviously, those actively participating in threads would want to see all posts and would respond to some. But those who do as we implore and use the search feature to find information may wish to view long threads (with thousands of posts) with only 'helpful' posts visible.

You ask valid questions ^ and I'm sure that this will be spun by those pushing this in a way to make "well, gosh golly gee, we never thought about that at all" to "I have some inside information that I can't share but don't worry be happy" instead of giving us real answers :rolleyes:

What makes anyone sure that the posts/members being cliqued (intentional Freudian slip) as "helpful" are not just noted for reasons that are not limited to your idea of "helpful information"? Keep in mind that the idea of what is helpful and not may vary from one reasonable person to another reasonable person. Are we to have FTers suspended for no other reason than having a different opinion of what constitutes "helpful" when using the "like"/"helpful" notation in an "unpopular" (with a clique) way?

The "do a search" (or not doing it) stuff will continue -- probably just as much as usual -- with or without this feature enabled for general member play. The more complicated a forum becomes, the harder it may become for new/less-experienced members to separate signal from noise as the like/helpful games would enable another source for noise on FT. Din can be entertaining, but it can also lead to tin ears and more din.

Is there going to be a search feature for only "liked"/"helpful" noted posts? Is it going to default by pulling up every post with one "like"/"helpful" notation? Will members be able to note their own post as "like"/"helpful"? The answer to that last question is probably no, right?

The more I think about this, this feature being turned on for us plebes can make FT a more entertaining place if your idea of entertainment is the OMNI Games type threads. Want a lot of "likes"/"helpful" notes? Then play the popularity games and become a member of the clique that clicks for members of the clique and run up those counters (masked or not).

I've taken several days off to collect my thoughts on this topic. I'll say again that I am delighted by the extensive discussion and surprised by the complexity of the issues and choices. At this point I am unlikely to advocate a site-wide reader feedback button. I would prefer to wait until the mobile application is working well and then find a way to enable reader feedback selectively by forum.

Now let me address some inaccurate hyperbole:

I don't see how a complete reading of what I have posted in this thread could lead either of you to conclude that I believe there are 6 TalkBoard votes for reader feedback or that that CD has decided to add reader feedback. This is a study in progress, not an attempt to force some existing product on our members. I suppose Carol could do that, but that's not at all her style, as everyone knows.

For goodness sake, we do have some odd theories going here. Seriously, what would be the point of asking for members' opinions and then manipulating the poll? That would only make sense if you were intent on forcing an outcome regardless what arguments were made. TalkBoard members can be stubborn, but we listen well. We wouldn't want anyone messing with our input from members.

The observations and arguments made in this thread are much more important to me than the vote count in the poll. We need to consider all the advantages and disadvantages when specifying potential reader feedback functionality. The fact that the poll is approximately evenly split warns us to be even more careful not to solve one problem by creating two more.

C'mon goalie, you know better than this. The inside information was Carol's internal demonstration and related information that she herself posted just a short while later. You make it sound sinister when you know it's not.

As to not giving answers, I don't understand why you would expect me or anyone to present a fully specified list of features and functionality when the whole point of this thread is to find the most useful set of features and functionality and then discuss whether or not we want to move forward to a trial of some sort.

There are enough questions in this thread to keep me busy a long time thinking about features and functionality. I'm not in a rush and the mobile app comes first, so there is plenty of time to discuss first features, then feasibility, then options for a trial. After all that we might vote on something, or we might not. It's the farthest thing from a done deal than I've ever seen on TalkBoard, outside some votes which were conducted purely for show.

Don't underestimate the ability and diligence of TalkBoard members to read and understand the issues and to make intelligent decisions for the benefit of FlyerTalk members.

Example: Given that a forum-specific reader feedback button is not currently available I for one am going to proceed very slowly and carefully. While we could run a short trial of site-wide reader feedback, that would be largely pointless unless we knew that we could have forum-specific reader feedback in the near future.

Please keep the comments flowing here. Your TalkBoard members are reading them.

Talk about people reading things how they wish -- sort of like how people read things as "helpful" however they wish. ;)

I never concluded anything about whether or not nsx believed/believes that there are 6 TalkBoard votes for this feature to be enabled; nor did I ever conclude anything about whether or not nsx believed/believes that the CD has decided to have this featured enabled for further use than what we have already had take place.

When I said the feature is a done deal and pretty much ready to go, I was talking about the feature, the software feature. I can't imagine IB decided to spend IT resources on this being pretty much ready to go if they thought it would be a commercial drag; but it doesn't take imagination to realize that a feature that is technologically a done deal and pretty much ready to go is far more likely to be toyed with than say something technically far more complex that is not currently deliverable.

Inaccurate hyperbole? My second paragraph above is a response to inaccurate hyperbole.

I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, IB has something ready to go. I'm pretty nearly convinced that it's not good enough for our purposes in its present state. It needs some work, which will not happen until the mobile app is done, if then. So to me, that makes it not a done deal. Maybe that's why I misunderstood.

Don't be bullied.

I agree. Normal user votes should stay confidential. Votes from Talkboard members should be public.

The comment seems a non-sequitur if not also rich advice in a relevant context. Did something disappear in this thread in the past couple hours between nsx's post and yours?

Votes from TB members are public, once voting has concluded.

Really guys - some conspiracy theorists we got here! Lobbying on such a minor issue on FT?!

I would love for a better mobile site as well as an Android app back (and hits time, that works well). But I don't see why one has to come at the expense of the other

Why you sad about that? It's a done deal and ready to go in that the software is already developed and ready to be rolled *if* FT chooses to implement. They/we don't have to

I was most surprised from that thread that BA is the busiest forum @:-)

I'm sad that there's been very little thought given to this by those pushing for it, yet when people bring up concerns, they are told there is "inside" information, or their concerns are minimized, and there's been no plan presented. I also think this will cause many, many issues in some forums, but some are unwilling to consider, or even listen to those concerns.

Or with "conspiracy theorist" taken as interchangeable with "lobbyist" on the issue, yes.

Helpful post this is, so who can "like"/"helpful" note it in 2015 or 2016 or whenever this feature gets enabled for the FT masses? Will it still be "liked"/"helpful" then?

But it's not like it's been implemented or even for sure will be. If you're opposed I understand being upset if it's implemented. But considering the vote hasn't happened (finished?) yet, and it seems TB is leaning *against* it, why the sadness?

As for the inside information, this thread got a bit too unwieldy for me to even follow. What do you mean?

Did you miss nsx's post?

As well as his older apology for misusing the term:

Since it's been made (more or less) public now, I'll connect the dots and back up nsx's claim that it was nothing sinister. Carol had conferred with the IB admins and confirmed that there was an existing plug-in that IB would be willing and able to use in the event the TalkBoard voted to implement this feature. In preparation for any "yes" vote that might occur, she had (independently of the TalkBoard) asked IB to temporarily turn this plug-in on as a test so she and the TalkBoard (and, incidentally, the forum moderators) could see what it looked like.

nsx's original (bad-word-choice) "insider information" post came after Carol made this announcement but before the plug-in was turned on, so he knew little about what the options were other than what Carol had said: that a plug-in existed, so if the TalkBoard were to vote yes, the implementation was technically feasible. Of course he couldn't say that here, because the information from Carol about the plug-in's existence was said in confidence. Simple as that.

IB then turned the plug-in on as per Carol's request, the test proceeded, and then Carol asked IB to turn the plug-in off.

Simple as that. Nothing malicious, sinister, or conspiratorial here. IB has always left the operation of FlyerTalk up to Carol, who has (so far) respected official votes of the TalkBoard, and nothing appears to have changed.

So you're saying that the "like button" then called an "informative button" and now called a "site-wide reader feedback button." which you've been pushing is now something you're back-peddling on?

Now as to the "inside information"-you are the one who used that phrase and afaic, when someone uses that phrase, they are privvy to something that others are not and that doesn't come across as being up front and honest-it's really that simple. Whether it was not meant to be presented that way is another story but that's how it comes across to me

And as to not giving answers and "not understanding why you would expect me or anyone to present a fully specified list of features and functionality when the whole point of this thread is to find the most useful set of features and functionality and then discuss whether or not we want to move forward to a trial of some sort."- Isn't it the job of someone proposing something to have answers in hand. I'm not saying to have all the answers to all the issues & questions but at least have the basic abc's as that imho is the job of the presenter and not the job of the audience to be doing the presenter's homework

I guess that depends on whether one regards this as a collaborative design effort or a group critiquing one person's design.

As to back pedaling, I always feel free to modify my opinion when I get new information. Don't you? Isn't that the point of this thread? Or do you regard it as somehow unfair to the critics if the initial proposal changes in response to member feedback?

Here's what I just posted on the reopened OMNI thread:

It sure sounded to me when nsx started this thread that he was primarily interested in soliciting member feedback and ideas for whether something like this should be implemented and how it should be implemented. We've had almost a thousand posts of discussion on the idea, some of it productive discussion. I don't see how this could possibly be considered "backpedaling."

See my previous post and the respective included quotes of nsx's previous posts. If you do not believe that my post and the posts of his that I quoted address your concern, then I suppose there is not much point in continuing to discuss this with you.

No, it's not, not when the person posting explicitly opens the discussion with (emphasis mine):

When this thread was moved about a month ago, an admin pm'd me about the move, because I had participated materially in this discussion when I first joined.

Part of the experience upon which I drew my former advocacy for a like post button here came from my residency on other boards owned by IB, running software identical to FT's, but with the like feature enabled.

Since FT'rs never really had the opportunity to truly test this feature, let me briefly describe how it works:

When a reader clicks the like icon, a pop up window appears, enabling the reader to type a brief message to the poster about why they liked the post. When the poster logs back in and checks "MyFlyerTalk", the message appears, along with which post was liked. In this particular IB iteration, the specific number of likes is not shown to other users, but the accumulation of likes is reflected in the number of "bars" showing under the poster's name.

Everyone starts with one good reputation bar. Every 100 likes adds another bar up until 5 bars, after which it takes 200 likes to earn subsequent bars, and perhaps 300 or 400 more likes to earn the final 10th bar, after which no more reputation bars can be earned, regardless of additional likes. Believe it or not, when one reviews the contributory content of users with the full 10 bars... those bars are for the most part well deserved, because the likes cannot all come from the same people. Here's why:

Suppose Jackal genuinely liked my post on this thread, and clicked the button and told me so, and then Jackal also just so happened to genuinely like another post I made on another thread in a different section of FT. Jackal would be prevented from liking me again, until he liked enough other posts by other users first. This prevents friends from liking each other back and forth over and over.

So what if the post I made in the other forum is of more helpfulness than the post made in this forum? Too bad. Jackal still cannot like it, because he already liked one of my posts once, and cannot like another one of my posts again until he has found other posts by other users on the forum worthy of liking. But if my post in the other forum was really that helpful, Jackal woudn't have to like it, because presumably other people who found it useful would like it, which is how the system balances itself.

That all being said, after being a resident on FT for going on two months now, I no longer believe a like system of any kind should be introduced on this forum. I made a new friend on this forum, an experienced flyer who pointed out to me that people who fly a lot are typically A type personalities. They are outspoken. Assertive. Aggressive. That's why the companies are paying them to go wherever they are going all the time.

This is certainly one of the most fractious boards I've ever participated in. If I made a post commenting on how many times UA has changed the color scheme of their airplanes over the last 10 years, eventually someone is sure to ferret an argument out of the comment, myself included. But unlike a lot of other boards, the arguments made here are more often well considered, informative, and engaging, rather than just name calling. I appreciate the tension between differing ideas, and find this very thread to be one such example.

Another distinguishing feature I've found with the FT forum is the TalkBoard... a panel of persons that appear to have a role that is somewhat different than "Administrators" or "Moderators". I'm not entirely sure what role the Talkboard plays in the guidance of this site, but if the virtues and values that are self evident in NSX's posts and handling of the discussion of this issue are of any example, then we are in very good hands. Thank you NSX!

Amen to both.

I am still trying to figure out how anyone would gain from launching a conspiracy to implement this feature on FlyerTalk.

Can we please return to discussing the reasons as to whether or not a “like” or “informative” or “site-wide reader feedback” or whatever button should be activated as a feature of FlyerTalk instead of speculating on conspiracy theories and hidden agendas?

Thanks, Canarsie.

You would think this was setting the UN/NATO/EU Budget for 2015/16 :(

It's a button. Use it or ignore it. Is it that difficult?

As to 'cliques', just "clique le bouton" to join one ;)

Yes all seems to be putting the cart before the horse to me.

Lets casually ask for member 'thoughts' on something tried and tested and discussed at length in secret by others, a minor detail not disclosed initially, until it was kind of blurted out by accident, and then the wallpapering began.

Isn't that how Zimbabwe 'works'? :cool:

Thanks for the input. I know it's appreciated by TB members.

Cheers.

The "like" feature that TB tested didn't have many of these features. People could "like" only posts of one other person or, in fact, "like" almost every post. There is no window to say why you like a post, nor the reputation bars you describe. I also didn't observe any messages in MyFlyerTalk.

Huh?

Tried? Nope. Not even seen by anyone on FlyerTalk until the brief internal demo last week.

Tested? The internal demo was not and could not be a test of how our members would use the feature.

Discussed at length in secret? No again. I decided from the start to have the discussion right here in TalkBoard Topics. There have been subjects which were discussed primarily in the private TalkBoard forum, but not this one.

I don't understand see how you are reaching your conclusions.

We agree...
"Inside information," a sudden implementation with a "please only use it in private forums," and it not being used only in private forums, etc. How was the internal demo not a test of how it would be used?

Because it was not intended to show what kinds of posts would draw Helpful votes from what members. That can only be tested in an active public forum.

The internal demo was just to show TB members and moderators the look and feel of the capabilities of the available plug-in. Nothing more.