Not all threads are massive, although I realize some forums have them. If there's pertinent information, there's also the wiki function. @:-)

While the people who liked/rated helpful the info, the point is that it wasn't accurate & they're now going to be asking for things that are contradicted by the T&Cs. Not sure how that turns out to be helpful. Also they can't go back & change their helpful to unhelpful when they come across the reality that the information was wrong.

Cheers.

In my personal FT experience, I often encounter massive threads when trying to find information. I assume I am far more diligent than most when it comes to searching, yet I am often unable to find information without spending days and days reading through posts (which I sometimes do). If we can make this situation better and make it easier for people to find factual information buried in massive threads, we should. As for the Wiki, I assume by the smilie that you are joking since those tend to be rarely used except for a small number of areas.

Maybe they should be able to go back and undo a 'helpful' vote. On StackExchange one can go back and undo an upvote (or a downvote).

Perhaps revamping the search feature to improve it should be a priority, rather than a ranking system?

I think it would be more feasible to implement a mechanism for ranking posts coupled with a (possibly later) mechanism to view large threads with only higher-ranked posts visible than to try to design a search mechanism that's better than Google's (which I often use to try to find content on FT). I'm not aware of any usable mechanism that can determine context (just as one example, factual information rather than speculation or opinions as to what is desired). Humans are much better at this sort of thing.

Now, this entire endeavor might well be a fool's errand. It's certainly possible that FT is hopeless, that human nature being what it is, the state of FT discussion and usefulness as an information resource can never be decent, and we really should give up on it. Being an optimist, I hope this isn't true, but I'm always willing to believe I'm wrong.

I'm inclined not to have Omni threads count either. It's not an essential part of FT. There is some useful content in there, but I agree that it's mostly conversational threads. Don't think you want content marked as "helpful" if it's just a funny cat video or whatever the latest internet sensation is. That content can be "liked" on other social networks.

Without a doubt, Omni PR threads shouldn't have voting options. Topics are too divisive, it will cause far more pain than it's worth. Again, this is not a core part of FT. There's a nasty discussion forum under Travel Safety & Security where I'd expect the same sort of behavior to occur.

I strongly support having a dislike option IF a like option is implemented (though I don't support that at all :)). But some people on the internet are apparently very thin skinned, and easily get upset when there are too many downvotes. I've seen many forums where the posters end up just deleting their original content because they're pouting. It also leads to many useless "why are people downvoting this?" discussions.

In concept, this is a good idea. But it will be seen as a vote for the person just as much as a vote for the content. Especially so for any down votes.

Do you have a suggestion on how you could split these two apart?

And some posters don't provide useful info in ANY forums :p Hopefully a system like this would catch those folks too, and action could be taken to show those folks the door.
Some forums limit the timeframe for you to change your vote. Not sure what the thinking is behind this. Maybe it's related to voting abuse, where you need to give <any users> some sort of votes before you can re-vote on posts from <user x>?
I agree that some sort of filtering based on votes is needed. The devil will be in the details here. Basically we'll get whatever IB already has implemented in vB...take it or leave it. It would be great to see an example of a vB forum using something like this (native solutions only, not custom/plugins), so we can all get a better understanding of how it's used.

It's definitely sounding like it. And based on the poll, there's certainly not clear, overwhelming support to add this functionality.

Without an understanding of some key pieces - mainly how these votes will be used/what value they'll bring - it's hard to paint a picture of what the potential up/down sides might be. That's why there's so much speculation in this thread, which is just causing confusion. I know I'm adding to it, but it's based off my experience on other boards with voting capabilities (fatwallet and slickdeals being the main ones), and the reactions users have there.

I just don't see why this is necessary or even desirable.

Having a post rating mechanism that is only applicable within some forums will help a lot, I think. Being sure that there is no mechanism to view any sort of per-poster stats will also help, I think. (E.g., TripAdvisor allows anyone to vote a review as 'helpful' and reviewers' info shows how many 'helpful' votes their reviews have received. StackExchange awards badges to members whose questions or answers have received a certain number of upvotes. FT does NOT need any such stats. There should be NO indication as to how many of a member's posts have been upvoted (or downvoted if this is added).

Of course there are many such members, but I'd strongly suggest that any mechanism for ranking posts not have a goal of discouraging such members. That's a different job for a different mechanism.


I think it would be OK to implement this in stages, e.g., first a mechanism for ranking posts (able to be enabled in some forums and not others, maybe even in some threads and not others). Then, some way of viewing threads that only shows higher-ranked posts. I'd expect both mechanisms to be refined over time, as we learn from experience.

Yes, it's hard to know if something will be good without knowing the details. But it's also very hard to design something good without understanding the goals.

My suggestion for goals:

• Rank posts, not members
• Able to be enabled per-forum (maybe per-thread)
• Allow viewing threads that hides posts below a threshold

I agree. But then it goes back to an earlier question - what's the point of the like/helpful button? :) Like you say, we need to understand the goals.

Seems like finally having an obvious way to track the trolls is one benefit that can come from a system like this. There are some members that SHOULD be discouraged from posting here.

I agree, and that's a standard software development practice. There's no rush to have it all right away. But IB has a horrible track record here. Could be years between getting these updates. Potentially longer if each tweak has to go through this same sort of polling process. And there's always a risk that if you don't test it end to end all at once, you may find out the initial piece is broken and you have to start over or make some other change that would effectively wipe out all of the previous votes. People might be cool with that, just another thing to take into consideration.

+1

Depends on which feature and which goals.

A mechanism to "like" a post? I don't see it as useful. I see it as a social media tool.

A mechanism to rank a post (e.g., as 'helpful')? I see it as a foundation for a subsequent feature to allow filtered views of long threads so that only high-rated posts are visible. Combined, this can be a real leap forward in FT usability with large threads that contain useful information scattered among thousands of discussion posts.

I see the opposite as many megathreads and social event threads now sport a wiki to centralize important information eliminating the need to hunt through the whole thread. Wiki usage will also grow as more members become more familiar with the tool.

Amen. As others have posted some of us are older than 18, and do not seek or need fake clique endorsements from others. Facebook is already invented, for just that purpose.

I've never bothered with Facebook, but have made 31,000 posts here as FT is about Miles and Points not outlining what I had for breakfast, or what friends I was having dinner with last night etc, or what colour shoes I am wearing today.

Well if TB even does get to a vote on this, I hope the voting wording includes this -

"If the motion is successful, any member can opt to be excluded from this 'feature' altogether".

The near total failure of a similar thing FT has had for years - "FRIENDS" is still there, and luckily members were also able to opt out of that Circus from Day #1, and so it should be if this unneeded sideshow ever gets to a vote.

Just FYI (I think it has been mentioned upstream already): the current vB "like" facility can not be restricted to or from certain fora. It's pretty much an all or nothing option.

I hope it remains that way, if this feature gets turned on for wider use on FT than the had-trial.

OMNI/PR would be interesting...