I don't think software can prevent all possible gaming. I expect any trial to demonstrate that FlyerTalk members are a cut above and therefore will not play every game they can think of to abuse reader feedback.

As I wrote earlier, the Internet is full of beneficial features which are susceptible to abuse but which are not routinely abused: eBay, craigslist, Uber, and so on. FlyerTalk members are more mature than typical Internet users, so it makes sense to expect proper behavior.

Is there a way to differentiate between a spelling correction and editing for content?
If it wasn't FT, I might agree. However, by nature, many of the members "game" the points and miles system.

The previous rating system that FT put up and then pulled -- because it was "abused" even on FTer birthday posts -- brings into doubt the assertion that the FT point game players won't play games to score points for or against individuals even when there is no post content to criticize unless the point is to criticize the individual or appear to be a good or bad "gang" member.

The gaming behavior that goes on (or does not go on) in trial periods may be different than the gaming behavior that goes on later -- different in nature and quantity. And then you'll say the mods can deal with it or rules can be changed?

That's a really good point, presuming social weight is assigned to likes and/or like totals, and brings up a couple more relevant comments:

1. On our forum, once a response to a posting has been placed, editing of any prior posting is disallowed, except by a moderator or administrator. That's very different from FlyerTalk. Even if a post doesn't follow, an existing post can only be user-edited for about 30 minutes and then it's essentially cast in stone. Any edits by moderation appear as notated at the bottom of the post similar to FT.

2. A member's 'like totals', both received and given, are displayed in their public profile and, when clicked on, a list of the precise postings they have been liked for or liked is returned and any member can peruse those postings. Experience varies but like totals can be or become a measure of social 'popularity' and the basis for political activities.

Again, knowing that TB is loathe to close forums, I doubt this would be "undone" quickly even with widespread abuse.

I don't think so because it requires knowledge of "intent." Some IA based algorithms could "learn" to distinguish some of it, but my JerK/HerO example even involves interchanging letters that are located nearby on the QWERTY keyboard, so they could easily be innocent typos.

That's essentially a reputation feature, which I think we should explicitly exclude from any trial. People would definitely game a system which included reputation.

So then, either the likes go away when there's an edit, or people can post one thing, get a bunch of likes, then edit it, gaming the system.

Has it been determined if IB's current feature that is active for moderators shows a list of the precise postings they have been liked for or liked is returned?

"Likes" are a reputation feature of a sort.

It has not been turned on yet as far as I know. Anyway I haven't seen it yet.

However this issue turns out I want to say how grateful I am that we have been able to discuss it so thoroughly and uncover quite a few questions that we otherwise would have overlooked. To everyone who posted here: a big ^

An evanescent one, which IMHO is exactly the right kind. Kinda like EQM's which are about to reset to zero. :D

While we discuss this proposal, here is an impromptu “like” button in the meantime — albeit disabled for the time being:

http://www.angelfire.com/nc3/throwaway/like.jpg

Effervescent as well as evanescent, I suppose...

That's more or less what I envisioned when I made the original post, though without the :td: option. Simple "like" or ^, no more no less, with whatever usage features, restrictions and terms of usage the TB decides to implement for it.

Some terrific points have been raised in this thread, though. Color me impressed by the consideration and high level of discourse that this topic has been afforded. ^;)