Bolding mine:. Then put this whole thing to bed until you have information of the non-inside type that you can share-along with answers to basic questions

I don't see why we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. We're having a discussion of features and pros and cons. There's no need to wait to have that discussion, especially since the list of features we want might change IB's willingness to develop it.

Not really. We're talking about a board where people have thousands of posts. They just have to like <x> number of other posts before they like a post from this person again. If anything, it encourages them to vote on a bunch of garbage content just because they have to use a bunch of votes up. I have seen this in action on other boards.

And when that happens, how do you "prove" clique-y behavior (which is often a violation of the rules)?
That assumes a lot. Look at the number of obvious reposts or things posted in the wrong forum. Those are actual problems for the mods today. They are user education issues. Those things are FAR more discoverable than something such as the like button.

I've been on forums where people didn't know for some time that this functionality existed. Hell, I was on this forum for some time before I realized the voting on a thread DIDN'T matter :D I don't think that the system would balance itself out as well as you think it would. Is that something that could be addressed with user education of some kind? Sure. But the other 2 problems I mention would be far more important to tackle first.
At least we can agree on this ;) ^
I have a different A word that I used for most of those folks. (Thanks IB for keeping the ignore list)

Because maybe there's other things more important and better suited for Flyertalk? You know, like a properly functioning mobile app (and if you truly want beta testers*, I'd bet the farm that you'd have a list of f/t'ers a mile long volunteering [myself included])

*as opposed to the mishegas created of having a trial where only those given permission to test it but only in their own forums couldn't follow simple instructions

I oppose the idea of a "Like" button.

Over the years, FT's mature and thoughtful discussions have frequently helped me make sense of awful and tragic events. (For current examples of this, see the threads about MH370 and QZ8501.) I don't see how a "like" button would improve the quality of that type of thread.

I have also been here when the community reacted to truly awful events involving community members-- such as the untimely demise of a young FT member (who was a frequent poster in the Delta forum). Do we really want to have "like" buttons under posts about the passing of a member?

What about the times when active FT members suddenly are exposed as public figures -- what possible good could come out of having "like" buttons under posts about a FT member's highly-publicized dispute over a trivial matter?

Hate-filled comments also appear on FT -- whenever a TSA employee is arrested for something, there are bound to be several hate-filled posts about the employee, their alleged crime and/or their employer. The annual devaluations of FF programs also cause angry hate-filled posts. Do we really need "like" buttons under those?

What about threads that are complaints about IB and/or the site sponsors? Imagine someone posts an awful thread about a site sponsor, e.g. a "[Site Sponsor] eats children" thread -- does IB really want "like" buttons under those threads?

Can you please answer me why you completely ignored my previous post and why you continue to insist there are black helicopters where you darn well know there aren't any? You absolutely know it; you had the exact same "insider information" as nsx did.

It sure looks to me like you want to argue just for the sake of arguing here.

(And as for accusing the TB members of not following protocol to only test it in their private forum--how do you know they were even given that directive? Have you talked with them? Have you confirmed it with Carol? And honestly, what relevance does that possibly have to anything being said in this forum? If you have a concern that a TalkBoard member violated Carol's instructions, why wouldn't you address it with Carol? It has no place here.)

Now here's where I for the first time felt the need for a "like" feature :D



But seriously, I think we have listed many of the issues, doubts and problems with a like feature. I don't think we can be more constructive with what is known. I'm not sure what bubble gum we are even supposed to be chewing on anymore.

So I think (again IMHO) we soon have reached the point where nsx and TB either comes forward with a more substantial proposition we can give new feedback on, motions/seconds/votes for whatever exists right now or calls it a day for now.

I've said it before, this is such a straw man argument. It is absolutely not true that if we weren't discussing the "Like" button issue IB would be rolling out a mobile app. It is not one or the other.

The above is still valid. Not seeing a huge clamoring of FTers asking for this, which is usually one of the more important criteria when TB considers something.

Agree, and it's a concern of mine (pardon the pun).

Why should Omni be left out? Both Omnis are valid, functioning forums on FT that also get post counts. The only Omni that doesn't get post counts is Omni games.

FWIW - I also think if there's going to be a helpful button, there needs to be an unhelpful button. That's one way of identifying incorrect information.

Agree. Having a good mobile app is & should be a much higher priority. For those saying IB can do both, let's just remember how long it's taking to get a decent mobile app & how long it's taking for a decent chat function. If IB needs to splinter resources to add a customized like function, even when there's not a large clamoring for it, it's not unreasonable to assume that some things will be further delayed. That's not a strawman, but based on IB development to date.

Agree with the above - and whether liked or not, those are valid questions.

FT tried a reputation feature years ago. It failed badly. Having anything that rates a poster would probably result in the same if implemented now. Whether it can be broken out in terms of rating a post without rating the poster is a valid question.

Hadn't even thought of all that, but valid points/questions.

Agree with the above. Your first sentence gets back to concerns many have posted that haven't yet been addressed which would need to be if the latter paragraph happens (given there isn't a huge clamoring for this by FTers, I'm more supportive of the calling it a day but that's just me).

BTW - I was chatting with some FTers re: the like topic & they're opposed. One of the things they said was that if this did get approved, they want the ability not to see likes at all. They didn't just mean in their profiles, but similar to putting someone on ignore. They don't want to see in posts if it was liked or not and that's across all forums. They don't want their view of FT cluttered, they don't want to participate in likes, they don't care if their posts are liked, they have no intention of giving them. So just as you can turn signatures on/off, put someone on ignore & it/they disappear they want that option so that their viewing/participation in FT continues as it has & is not disrupted. So that's a valid request & whether it can be done or not certainly needs to be answered (along with other items).

Cheers.

My question is how will this be used?

Currently we have a rate a thread button, however, I cannot tell or don't know how each thread is actually rated in relation to others in that forum. There is no number associated to help determine where or how a post is ranked.

These features will help to determine the value in not just the thread but the poster as well.

When I joined FT, I had no idea who "knew what". I had to contribute to see who I felt based on their posting content was "a value" to me.

This could help someone new to FT or new to a forum feel more comfortable taking advice or asking for an opinion from a fellow forumer.

Thanks for that excellent idea, Sharon. I don't know if any other site offers that functionality, so it might be hard to implement. But it belongs on the feature wish list.

If the intent is to rate the poster, then perhaps all forums should be eligible. If the intent is to rate a post for being helpful/having solid information, then I don't see the usefulness within forums or threads that are conversational.

Similar to the StackExchange rating system for both questions and answers, where a member can upvote or downvote both questions and answers? That could be one way to implement this. I don't have enough experience with StackExchange to be able to say if such a system would be good for FT, but it might be.

I think a post rating system could be implemented that would be completely independent of poster reputation, and I'd encourage such a mechanism to be completely divorced from it. That is, having one's posts rated highly should not in any way rate a poster. I think this is one way to avoid cliques/friends/etc, and it also reflects the wide diversity of contexts within FT. A poster who provides helpful, solid information in one forum might not do the same in another forum.

I'd feel the same way about a 'like' mechanism, but I think a 'helpful' mechanism is sufficiently different (if implemented correctly) that I'd want to participate and more importantly, have the option to view long threads with only the most helpful posts shown. I wonder if the FTers you were chatting with would feel the same about a post rating system as opposed to a poster reputation system?

Does this example represent clutter? (The bottom line on the post)

Not suggesting it's a good or bad thing, nor that IB could implement that, but it's easily ignored.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/thr...-spent.195692/

Doubt it based on my conversation with them. Plus I don't think the system does what you would like it to do, ie, view long threads with only the most helpful posts shown. Also, someone can post good information but if by chance it doesn't get a bunch of likes/helpfuls you would end up not viewing that post even if the information was good.

BTW - I was on a hotel chain's BB today & in one thread, someone asked the company rep for information. They checked, came back - and posted wrong info that the company's own T&Cs refuted. Yet the post got lots of likes & that's helpful comments :rolleyes:

Cheers.

I doubt it would do that at first, but it could be added, and would need a basis of posts that were rated in order to function. So, I view a mechanism to rate posts as being a necessary first step towards making massive FT threads useful.

Sure, that's a risk, but the alternative is to either skip the entire massive thread and just post a new question that's likely been answered somewhere in the thread, or read the last page or two of posts and do the same.

Sure, no system is perfect, and likely the people who liked/rated helpful though the information was accurate.