Ididn't see this in time but

I would have voted

oppose

so please take that into consideration when making this decision

I find this one of the more bizarre comments in the thread. FT not social? Unless you see FT only as a fact repository, it's one of the most obvious examples of social media on the web!

(regarding displaying a member's "Helpful" total)
If a member's "score" is displayed, that encourages members to find ways to manipulate the score. The Manufactured Spending crowd would be all over this, manufacturing scores in the thousands, just for the fun of it. If you think members play games to inflate post count, just watch what they do when you give them a score.

If and when a Helpful button has established a successful track record I'd be willing to run a short trial of publicly viewable score. I would not expect the trial to be a shining success, but maybe it would surprise me.

I was just providing information, I was not discussing anything about the current number of votes or percentages.

Not a poster on OMNI (not allowed to be yet - the perils of years of persistent lurking), but this type of implementation was what I was envisioning when I read the initial proposal. It would act as a means of indication to the poster without being a broad signaling mechanism to the community (beyond the reading of that specific thread and coming across a message that had a ton of likes). In theory, we would get a somewhat Skinnerian positive behavior reinforcement without the explicit ill will to others of a negative indicator (an "Dislike", for instance). Gamers or political likers could click to their heart's content with little systemwide consequence (spuriously making some posters feel good - the horror!), but some of the +1'ers would feel this is a good substitute and others who are silent (ahem, me) would click in support.

Perhaps the furthest I'd think it would make sense to go in terms of community signaling would be being able to sort a thread by number of Helpfuls/Likes. But even that is a bit troublesome, I'd imagine, because there's so much context to be gained by seeing discussions in order. (However, given that it would be an explicit choice a viewer could make, there's an argument for caveat browsor there.)

That's the biggest problem with this proposal - grouping posts by the number of likes will gut the context of some really good discussions.

You could have saved us a lot of time in finding the answer! :D

I have really enjoyed this discussion. I feel I have learned a tremendous amount about what could go wrong with all the fancy scoring schemes that I once thought were so promising.

The consensus here seems to me to favor:

1. A Helpful button that shows the total count for a given post.
2. Per-member totals of votes received are NOT viewable by the public.
3. Total of votes received are NOT viewable privately by the recipient.
4. Vote count has no effect on thread display. I.e., no filtering option.

I consider the preceding features to be mandatory. Feature 5 would have made that list too prior to this recent post.

The next two functions are a trade-off between value and implementation cost, and I don't yet have any information on the latter. So these will take time to research:
5. The Helpful button should be able to be turned on and off by forum.
6. Members should have the ability to disable all display of the new functionality.

Remaining questions to be discussed further here:
7. Should voters' handles be publicly viewable? I lean to Yes on this.
8. Should per-member totals be viewable by moderators? (This might not be an issue within TalkBoard's scope, but there's no harm in talking about it here.)
9. Should there be a post count and tenure requirement for access to the reader feedback functionality (like access to OMNI)? This might tie in with the implementation of item 6.

I obviously was aiming too high since the poll is now closed with 725 votes.

For me, Slickdeals isn't a social media either. The most obvious examples of "social" media are sites like Twitter or Facebook. If you consider FT in the same league as Twitter and Facebook, I don't know what to say.

Having said that, I am fully aware there are social threads on FT, such as the lounge threads. Due to our core missions, FT does facilitate certain social exchange/gathering such as DOs. FT has matured with a good number of devoted members participating in discussion. Over the years, passionate FTers develop connections and friendship that helps signify the social side of FT, but that doesn't make FT a "social" medium by default. YMMV.

Certainly; it's just the one most often named where it will be "abused" or "gamed," including in one post further back of yours that I was responding to, which you responded by quibbling about "like" vs. "helpful."

I'm still trying to find an explanation for how this is going to be abused that doesn't boil down to "people might click 'helpful' on something that was factually incorrect, and then other people might misunderstand that to be authoritative."

Nobody has proposed that, and at least a few of us who are in favor of the mechanism in general have actively disclaimed that.

Except for #3, that sounds about right; #3 is still, IMO, harmless but it also doesn't add a lot of value (I'm sure, as you noted above, it would be gamed, but I don't think that gaming for pure egoboo score is likely to come out in ways that are intrusive on others; if people with too much time on their hands really want to waste time liking one anothers' posts on Omni/Games, I don't see the harm in it, and that's definitely where they should be suggested to go if they feel the need.)

Nice to have if it's easy to accommodate, although who then gets to decide which forums it's turned on/off for?

IMO, also nice to have if it's easy to accommodate, although I think the way it was phrased up-thread ("opt out completely" -- e.g. to disable other people voting on your posts) is probably disruptive and confusing. If the main display is itself tasteful and not too obtrusive, I don't see an option to hide it as a necessity. If it's not tasteful, or it's huge, even those of us who like the feature are likely to be bothered by it.

IMO, this is a good bit less valuable if they're not. It's probably still worth having as an engagement mechanism, but it no longer has an individualized signaling function.

I don't see any real utility or harm in this; if there were a down-voting mechanism and we were trying to do a full-on reputation system, this would be necessary, but as you've said, the consensus is strongly against that.

The then-current TalkBoard would make recommendations to the Community Director, or the Community Director would act on her own.

Sorry, nsx. I misunderstood. I thought that we were considering having a "+1" or "Helpful" button on individual posts. I completely agree that there should not be totals listed by member of all his/her posts.

That is what's up for discussion.

I wasn't quibbling I was correcting you when you used another term when I'd said 'helpful' in my post. You may find them one and the same but I don't which is why I chose the term I had.

Completely agree and it's that forum more than OMNI which makes me want to opt it out if possible from any form of 'helpful' button.

Same league? Of course not? Same style? Of course.

The back-and-forth we're having right now - sharing opinions, disagreeing, providing support for our statements - is social by its very nature. If you don't think this is social media, then I don't know what to say.

Why would TB members need to see how much a member is liked? How does that facilitate their role on FT?

If this is a great idea, why would it need to be able to be turned off? Seems logically inconsistent.

In turning off my ability to see the data, please also turn off my ability to see all the discussion, meta-discussion, and arguments on the same topic.

Certainly when it comes to the original claim about OMNI/PR, the distinction is a quibble. There's no content there that could be confused with being "helpful" in a practical sense.

Overall, I do think it's a quibble and while they are not literally one and the same, in practice most people can and will use them interchangeably even if some people will choose to read them literally.

To my mind, that speaks for choosing a less specific wording if given the choice, but as I said up-thread, I think most people are sophisticated enough not to read too much into votes even if given a more specific label like "helpful."

I believe it was phrased as an wish for a absolutely mandatory feature of the system by those who raised it, not a nice to have.

And not only the display. The opt out that was asked for was both on views and on participation. Just like nkedel says, opt out on participation could be disruptive, and that is why it has to be considered even more carefully at the early stages of the (possible) implementation of this feature.

Therefore, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if nsx would move this to the mandatory list.


On views, the purpose of the opt out is to save screen space, to not clutter the view or draw attention to something the user has no interest in and to be presented the threads without any filtering, re-ordering or other manipulation of the discussion flow (should such functions be developed).

On participation, the purpose of the opt out is again to keep unnecessary screen objects out of sight, even though this might be a minor issue - a like button can be constructed without stealing much space. I could even be implemented as a "Post-tools drop-down", analogous to the thread-tools and the forum-tools drop-downs.

But more importantly, I think the opt out for participation includes the possibility to not have your posts voted on, not having your posts or username appearing in top-lists or automatically featured on the blogs, frontpage et.c. (should such functions be implemented).

Opt out of participation could be implemented with minimal disruption to the function - the like button could be greyed-out on posts made by opted-out poster, and if clicking/hoovering the message "poster have opted out of like system" displayed.

The comparison between Flyertalk and TripAdvisor seems entertaining, at least.

Planning a trip, I turned to TA for suggestions on a seafood restaurant at the destination. One of the reviewers had written 16 reviews, but had a 25-fold number of "helpful" votes.

One certainly hopes FT attracts at least some members from the same cohort of super posters...
:p

Are you sure it wouldn't be determined by the forum's moderators? They seem to decide whether the forum witll have a lounge thread and whether there will be Ambassadors for the forum. This decision seems similar in spirit.

I vote no
 

Ugh, no. Please don't implement a Like button. I don't care if other people "like" something or not. If they have something useful to add to a conversation (either positive or negative), then let them post.

Besides, those folks who like the "sound" of their own "voice" will still post stuff like "Yeah, I agree" or other <5 word responses that add little to conversation. I don't think they'll switch to using a "Like" button, so it probably won't cut down on the pointless posts.

Of course, I lurk 99% of the time, so perhaps the whole "don't respond if you have nothing valuable to add" is just a reflection of my own personal nature. :)

I'll survive if it's implemented, but it does seem pointless to me.

Moderators may have input and they can always make recommendations to the Community Director, but I see this as a features and functionality issue on which TalkBoard is supposed to take the lead in making recommendations.

As I said, the latter is not something I support. No consequences should flow from vote count of your posts, other than a possible inclusion in TalkMail or a curated FT home page. Both of those are built by people who can read.

The former sounds difficult to implement, but I will ask. The software would need to allow or not allow the button post by post, according to the preferences of the poster. That seems over the top, especially given that only upvotes are allowed. Besides, if you disable display any Helpful votes, how would you know whether anyone had voted on your posts?

You're presuming that everyone wants to know this information. I don't, and I suspect I'm not alone. :)

That was not my point. I was responding "the possibility to not have your posts voted on".

My point was that disabling the display of the Helpful button and Helpful counts would make it difficult for you to become annoyed at how many or how few likes your posts receive.

Well, so you are saying that
a) only usage is instant feedback
b) except possibly some things you find useful

That is exactly why I think the opt-out must be on the table from start.



Even to only display instant feedback between viewer and poster, the software will need to keep track of each and every upvote ever made. So when someone says "Hey, we have all this data stored, why not put it to use" and "The xxx-site is doing it and we should too" and "It is such a small step from what we do today, so no one can have anything against that" I think there should be some sort of insurance for us who provide the content to this site to opt-out from usage we are not comfortable with.



I don't know why an opt-out should be more difficult to implement. The software needs to render one like-button for each and every post it displays. It will be unique to each post, because the software must know which like button you click on.

It will also need to know who is watching the like button (because if you already liked a post, I guess you are not allowed to like it again, right?).

So to render each and every like button the software already needs to keep track of both the viewer and the post. And the software already keeps track of the owner of each and every post. The step to check the preferences of the owner of the post shouldn't be difficult.


The software already checks the viewer preferences before rendering posts (ignore list and signatures). Checking the poster preferences can't be more difficult.


Because I'm suddenly featured on the front page, referenced in a blog or put on a toplist or my post is suddenly used out of context. Your second sentence says you already have intentions to use the collected data in other ways than just to provide feedback.

You're presuming I care how many or how few likes my posts gather. I don't. As I posted above, I don't have a Sally Field complex. ;)

I don't see a big difference between Helpful votes and "Suggest this thread for TalkMail". Nobody has ever asked for ability to prevent others from suggesting your thread for TalkMail.

The "Like" button is a horrible idea. The whole thing is solution in search of a problem, and seems to be championed for no real reason by a few members. I have seen no good arguments for it, and a number of good arguments against it.

Along with anticipated problems, like manipulation of "like" counts by FTers accustomed to playing point maximization games and little cliques of the like minded, there will certainly be other, unanticipated problems.

As far as manipulating points/counts, the strange way the poll progressed has raised many eyebrows.

The disingenuous attempt at making the whole implementation less visible and less obviously what it is by relabeling the "Like" button a "Helpful" button to disguise a very unpopular concept is also disturbing.

I strongly encourage Talkboard to vote down this bad idea. We are not Facebook.

people seriously *still* working this angle???
 

If by "raised eyebrows" you mean "silly, unfounded, ridiculous accusations and far-fetched, foil-hat, laughable, conspiracy theories-- with absolutely, positively no foundation in fact whatsoever," then, yes, true, good point.

You've got your opinions, I've got mine. I routinely look at data sets and know when something seems odd.

Even anomalies in an election or poll pattern may have explanations that aren't rooted in anything beyond lobbying cliques getting their act together to try to sway the vote as they wish. Think of it sort of like when different groups run around herding bus loads of the elderly from select assisted living/nursing home facilities and dump them all at once at polling stations to vote against a public school funding bill -- that too sort of in hopes that exit poll data being disseminated widely publicly will sway further votes as they wish. People who voted early against this change probably did much the same, just not with as much (if any) lobbying effort beyond this thread. That said, people who voted in favor of a Facebook-like change seem to have latched onto different ideas of what this feature will be like even when there has been limited clarity about what version of this feature will be delivered -- a great vehicle for gathering votes is when the "change" marketed is rather amorphous in nature and subject to change/re-definition by administrative sort of fiat even post-voting/polling.

In plenty of places, who cast a vote in elections is public info -- even the means of voting and when the person voted is public info. That info being out there in public does have some substantial history of reducing voting fraud/irregularities.

Speaking of voting, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about requiring all members with voting rights to exercise their voting right as a condition of participation in society, even if the exercise is to cast a ballot that selects no candidate/proposal. FT/IB can't do that sort of thing, annoying as it may be?

GUWonder, that is the explanation that seems likely to me as well. But that does lead to a skew in the data.

In contrast to the “like” button system, submitting suggestions for inclusion in the TalkMail newsletter is completely anonymous to fellow FlyerTalk members; is not “invasive” to the profile of a FlyerTalk member; and submitting a suggestion does not automatically guarantee publication.

After all, as you said...By the way — what is with you and the number 666?!?

I saw the original request for it that way, but ultimately I don't think one or a handful of requests counts as by any means a consensus that it's necessary or even desirable.

To be clear, "nice to have" is just my opinion of it; I speak for nobody else.

Sure.

Even for those of us who want the basic mechanism, any of the above should be optional (and ideally opt-in, rather than opt-out.)

This is fine, although
...I think to the extent that this obscures the feature for new users, it's not a plus; I think it's an uncommon opinion in this thread, but one of the reasons I favor a like* button is that it's an engagement mechanism to bring people in who aren't (yet) comfortable taking a more active part in the direct conversation threads.

IMO, this is disruptive, and to an extent an unwarranted limit on other people's ability to comment on your post. It's rather like having a "don't allow people to quote my replies" checkbox.

Should such functions be implemented (and to the extent they aren't, already) there's no reason to tie any opt-out for such appearances to the like button, and while I'm more sympathetic to that then "I don't want other people to be able to 'like' my posts" in general, I think that it's an issue that should be addressed separately.

...and for someone truly concerned, they could potentially end up there even without "like" as both of those already exist.

I'd say it's potentially worse than over the top -- it could end up being confusing and/or frustrating, not to mention the potential feelings that it's censorship.

Yes, my point too.

And also, when pressing "Suggest to talkmail" it is pretty clear to the user what will happen - the thread will be suggested to be included in talkmail. The user can understand the consequences of the action.
The usage of the like/helpful vote is much more sneaky - it is in no way clear to the "liker" that the action will lead to anything besides a thumbs up on the post.


Another difference between the two functions is that one works on a thread and the other works on a single post. A single post is uniquely associated with a single member. A single post, outside its context can be read as something completely different than the poster intended.


The "no one ever asked for opt out on suggest to talkmail" is not a very good argument to not include opt-out when designing a new feature. In my mind, if the summary of this thread states "opt-out is just a nice to have", it suggests nsx read this thread very selectively.


If opt-out is left out, I guess members who doesn't want to be voted upon can resort to self-censoring by refraining from posting helpful things. This is in fact what has happened on some social media sites, where users have learned the hard way that they have very little control over how posted material is used.

His words were:
"The next two functions are a trade-off between value and implementation cost, and I don't yet have any information on the latter. So these will take time to research:"

"Nice to have" was my own unsolicited opinion of the feature.

Yes, taking one's marbles and going home is always an option.

I'm fairly sure the T&C here gives IB more latitude about how to use whatever you post here than most things posted to major social media sites (especially in light of the Facebook-FTC settlement.) If nothing else, the grant of license here is specifically listed as "irrevokable" whereas Facebook and Google's social features (although not some other parts of Google's services) explicitly give you the right to delete your content and end their license to reuse it.

The possibility of a more general opt-out, and to whatever extent IB is willing to allow it, is worth looking into. I really don't see how the addition of a "like" feature in any way changes the basic nature of it, nor how it makes it somehow more likely that IB will reuse posted content with or without attribution.

(I have no idea if IB is sophisticated enough to data-mine "likes" but even if they do, it's hard to see the impact of that on the person receiving the "likes" -- the value of a "like" in data mining or advertising is almost entirely based on the person doing the "liking" and not the underlying content.)

Fair enough.
I used "nice to have" as the established term for things deemed not essential for project approval, which was my interpretation of nsx's second paragraph. It doesn't literally say that in the OP, but I found the later reply to indicate this indeed was the case.

So getting "likes" is more important than keeping members and their contributions?

To some, apparently, it is.

I think the number of people who'd leave over the lack of an opt-out (especially if there was a "don't show me this feature" option) would be vanishingly small; the benefit of likes -- more modern appearance and easier engagement for new users -- both helps bring new people in.

Even if my guess is wrong, as a general rule, I'd err on the side of the latter.

I never said said leaving, though.

The self-censoring however is documented on other social media sites and the threat of fewer and/or lower quality contributions is real and not vanishingly small. But I guess it is pointless having this discussion. If you like the like, then nothing's gonna change that.