I love StackExchange, and something like it for specific questions/answers on FT might be good adjunct if separated from regular conversational forum content (they also have their own Travel board, I haven't actually checked it out.)

Upvoting/downvoting, or a more serious reputation mechanism (as opposed to a more Facebook-like "like/helpful" button to just clear out "me too/thanks/etc" replies) are unhelpful if the intent is to keep the format as a conversational forum.

Yes. But I'm as fine with that as having it anywhere else on FT. If the TOS rules are the same for all members on all parts of FT, OMNI is as good as the rest.

As I see it, a stripped-down version of what StackExchange uses might be a good idea: a mechanism to rank posts, but totally divorced from member ranking/reputation. By the way, I have on occasion participated in their travel area. From what I've seen, it tends to have far more basic, introductory questions, but certainly has potential to be much more (as evidenced by their other areas, especially the more technical ones).

To me, "like" and "helpful" are completely different (hence "like/helpful" makes no sense), because as I see "like" is Facebook-style social media, while "helpful" (as on TripAdvisor or to some extent StackExchange) ranks the post content. (Both TA and SE use this as part of a member ranking and badging system, which I think would be a bad idea for FT.)

As I've said before, I see zero benefit to FT in adding more social media mechanisms. I also see a differentiation between conversational forums and informational ones. I also see a problem with very large informational threads that people would like to mine for useful information. It is this view that makes me thing FT could benefit from a mechanism to rank posts that is not part of any reputation system.

I don't think -- on its own -- whether it's called "like" or "thanks" or "helpful" or "+1" that it matters what we call it.

I agree, that would be a bad idea for FT, at least in any meaningful sense.

We've already got silly names like "evangelist" and "posting legend" from post count, that do nothing of use but also don't seem to do any harm. If it's impractical to use the "helpful" option without having some kind of tracking of it (which I don't find adds any value on other boards I'm on), making it relatively unobtrusive is likely to be enough to keep it from being used to mislead.

I think the only benefit, and it's a small but potentially significant one, of a "like" or similar button is to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the forum by eliminating responses like, say, "^^^"

It's not clear to me that any forum is entirely informational or conversational; if someone were to restructure the whole frequent flier part so each airline/hotel program had a full wiki and a full knowledge base like Stack Exchange, and a clear discussion board it would be different but I don't think that's on the table or even that it ought to be.

The problem with ranking posts in megathreads by helpful likes is that after some time, older posts are much more likely to have more of these helpful likes than newer posts. Hence, even after the program rules change, people would nevertheless be presented with posts containing out of date information.

Lots of interesting points made in this thread.

I have some thoughts that don't seem to have come up yet. Before I do, some disclaimers so you know where I'm coming from.

A) I'm ignoring IT feasibility issues at this stage and just considering concepts.

B) I have a personal bias that I think FT shouldn't remain as it was in 1989 just because of the way it is. That is not a recipe for keeping FT alive and relevant to new generations of members.

C) As a frequent poster I like to get feedback on my posts, both good and bad. As a reader I like to see feedback others have given to help inform whether I should read the thread/post, and if I do whether I should trust the information.

With that out of the way, here are some of my thoughts.

1) What is the main purpose of the proposal?

Presumably to provide an easy means of feedback. Those providing constructive feedback can still do so by posting a reply (and this should be encouraged in my view). I think it is uncontroversial that a simple button makes it easy to give feedback.

2) What is the level of feedback / what is the feedback on?

To me, this must be an individual post or thread, and must not be at FTer level. Anyone (even me) can post brilliant information in their area of expertise and spout complete rubbish in other areas.

3) For the feedback to be useful it should be generally meaningful and not noise.

Gaming and one-sided feedback is unhelpful, and so any system should try to limit this or at least mitigate it.

4) I don't think FT profiles should have any link to feedback on their posts.

Partly this relates to point #2 above, and also it would reduce the incentive for FTers to seek favourable feedback for its own sake, or to give unfavourable feedback.

5) A counter of favourable feedback is useful only to a point.

A displayed high count of favourable feedback could indicate a really good post, or could be gaming. However a displayed low count of favourable feedback could indicate a poor post, or just a not-well read post.

6) A possible mitigation of gaming.

Effects of gaming can be mitigated by having positive and negative feedback, and also by only displaying an indicator or label if a post has more than a threshold number of positive feedbacks and simultaneously less than a threshold number of negative feedbacks. E.g. a helpful post label or highlight only appears if a post gets at least 10 clicks on the helpful button and no more than 10 clicks on the inaccurate button.

7) Information on FT generally gets dated over time.

A post may be brilliant at the time it was posted but six months later could be out of date and give completely wrong information.

I'm not sure how this can be best addressed through feedback system, although my suggestion in #6 would enable FTers to click on inaccurate button to remove the helpful post label (as long as the thresholds are sufficiently low).

8) Display handles of those providing feedback?

There are arguments both ways but on balance I'd prefer not to (but have available for forum moderators if needed).

While sunlight can be a disinfectant, displaying handles will significantly add to clutter.

The people who oppose the like button are so vociferous in their stated objections, it is difficult to gauge from reading this thread what the general community of Flyertalker's would prefer based solely on reading this thread.

The poll, last I checked, suggests a 54-43 majority in favor of some type of Like button, yet a few active posters here seemingly stand guard over the discussion's progress, on alert with shoe already in hand, ready to smash any cockroach of an idea in favor that dares to venture out on the forum floor.

These ever active voices of dissent are reason enough not to incorporate any kind of like button here, because the costs in moderator and Talkboard time to administer the system, and adjust and adjudicate the sure to be found faults with what ever system is ultimately devised, is just not worth it. Yes, as one person posted a month or so ago, giving up on the idea can be considered as caving in to being bullied, but there is a bigger picture:

I'd rather the moderators devote their time to parsing out tangents from wandering threads, creating new threads from the removed remnants in order to preserve the information posted, while making it findable to others in the future by moving it to a forum where the topic can be expected to be found. This happened to some topics I participated in a while back, and I was quite impressed at that level of forum horticulture.

It takes time, effort and dedication to cultivate a high level of usability in an open forum with as broad of a scope as FT, and I'd rather see these Herculean efforts the moderators make to keep it all together devoted toward managing content, rather than managing the feelings of those who are fearful of a Like system.

In most forums I've participated in where a Like system is implemented, it is simply done and it is no big deal. Nothing like the federal case the decision has evolved to here at FT, apparently over many YEARS, as long time FT'ers have noted. While participants on the other forums genuinely feel appreciated when they have managed to post something useful that generates positive feedback in the form of Likes, these same people also appear to have built a foundation of self esteem independent of the number of likes given to their posts, so the administrative intricacies of the like system are simply not that big of a deal to them. The idea of "gaming" a Like system? It just doesn't come up. Period. There is more to life!

Here on FT however, any kind of Like system appears doomed to be a black hole sucking away moderator and Talkboard brain time from other duties that make FT the vanguard of airline travel forums. For example, the ongoing editing of the Wiki's at the top of many topic threads to incorporate new information as presented and subsequently vetted by other users in the relevant discussions. That is really cool. I don't see that very much in other forums. And I imagine that it takes a lot of time to keep the topic wiki's updated like that.

At this point in the discussion, I think the distraction of trying to find a consensus on a Like system is not worth the benefit. Part of me simply can't believe that policing a Like count is such a big deal to some. On the other hand, FT has many other mechanisms to manage and highlight good content (two of which were cited in this post) that require moderator attention in order to work. I'd rather see the moderator's focus remain on the good job they have already been doing in those regards.

1. BS. Both pro & con's are allowed to express their opinion. To imply that both FTers & TB members can't read & understand both is simply BS & a disservice to both.

2. The poll was actually much against until a week ago, when in a 48 hr period it switched, and then since then the poll has basically stayed the same. It's not the norm for polls to move one way or another that fast & that much (true re: whichever direction it goes). The poll is also open for another 2 weeks.

More importantly you evidently missed where this was brought up ago last year & it had 50/50 support & died a year until a TB member decided to make it his platform & bumped it up & it still was 50/50 & quite frankly even a bit ahead now is not an overwhelming platform.

Most ideas that have lukewarm or split support don't normally move forward - especially (and this is critical to this particular issue) - when so many questions & concerns don't have answers.

And you're new to FT, so I'm guessing you don't realize that TB members also read the threads for pros/cons & not just polls. They don't just base it all on 1 thing. I served on TB for 4 years & have total faith in current TB members that they review everything (whether it's this issue or another).

3. Your # 3 doesn't make sense in any universe. TB just approves (or doesn't) any idea. The CD & IB decide the final yes/no & mods (normally) have input on how everything works. But if it does get implemented, then it's not really a mod issue. After all it's just a like button. ;)

4. The mods already do that.

5. They already do that & your fearful comment is (IMO) just stoo-pid. No one is fearful of a like button. :rolleyes: But not to point out the obvious you've been on FT for 6 weeks & others have been on for many years & have experience you don't. So when they say they've experienced people gaming things, it means that's happened. You can do all the kumbaya all you want, it doesn't mean it didn't happen & won't happen again.

6. Wikis ARE cool - and can be edited by anyone & are a great tool. It doesn't require much attention by FTers, mods, IB or the CD.

7. Hallejuiah to your first sentence. Let me phrase this another way (IMO). It's a problem searching for a solution. There's not a huge clamoring for it by FTers. It was dormant for a year until a TB member who really wants to see it happen bumped it up.

And let me close by quoting YOU 8 days ago "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"

Cheers.

Flyertall, I do not agree on your rather dark view on this FT discussion.

It is true, you cannot find the general view of all FT'ers by reading this thread. But is there any place where you can find that? The poll?!? A few hundred votes in total, and a few more votes for one than the other. That is no gauge of FT general opinion. I think the only thing it says is that not much has changed since the last time it was polled/discussed.

Also, did you ever think of why the poll and the discussion differs? Participating in a poll (just like giving a like) is something that you can do with very little effort. So among the voters there will be many that haven't spent much time thinking about the question. All they did was stating "yeah, I like it" or "Nay, don't like it".
There is nothing wrong with that, and it is a gauge of some sort, but it does not move anything forward.

Now, participating in the discussion takes a lot more effort. You need to think about why you like/dislike the idea, find some arguments for it and so on. Naturally much fewer people will take the time to add to the discussion.

I too am surprised by the numbers of proponents to the idea being so few in this thread, but I recent your suggestion that proponents are treated as cockroaches.
The opponents of the idea have been articulate, yes. That is not a bad thing - many issuses have been brought to the table and if I recall correctly, nsx said he needed months to analyse and adress them to get a better proposition on the table.

So if opponents kept silent and nsx would move the suggestion unaltered forward to TB based on a poll with tiny majority - would that be a good thing?

If the answer is "yes, it would be a good thing because then I get my like button which I want but can't be bothered to make a case for" then I feel sad for the future of FT as a discussion board.

Beautifully put.

Like

Given there alreay was a trial of sort for this feature on FT in the month of December, it would have been useful if we were shown some screen shots of what a repeatedly "liked" post on FT looked like for readers -- along with screenshots of how the process looks to users of the "like" feature selecting a post for a "like".

I agree with all your points, but I would want to delay any implementation and testing of the masking function. Masking would increase the potential for abuse, so we would first need to see that the basic functionality is working as intended.

Again, only if the basic functionality proves trouble-free.

I would greatly prefer having this capability. I hope it's not hard to implement.

If I assumed we will never get any modifications from IB or elsewhere, I would have given up on this concept already. I want to figure out what we should put on our wish list for a trial.

Agreed.

A, B, and C: Agreed.

1. Agreed
2. Agreed.
3. Dropping the Unhelpful/Misinformation button was an attempt to reduce gaming. I am open to consideration of other methods, but I haven't seen any here.
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed but I don't see a better option here.
6. Disagree. Downvoting promotes voting wars much more than upvoting. It's human nature.
7. Agree. Maybe there is a way to kill the vote counts for old posts but I'm not convinced that it would be a good idea.
8. Agree. If we could start with the handles visible only to moderators (or visible to nobody) that would probably help.

I wish I had taken some screen shots even though I don't know how to edit them. However I'm not in favor of showing users any personalized vote statistics, so those screen shots would not be relevant. I also lean toward not showing the handles of voters to readers, so that part of the screen shot would not be relevant either. What's left is only a bare count of Helpful votes.

So the feature (trialed last month as part of the pursuit of this feature) showed which members liked a particular post and personalized vote statistics? Sounds like that is more or less what FT would get if the switch for this current feature was turned on for general FT member use during this poll for a "like" button (by whatver label "like" gets).

If people want the likes to be "anonymous", how does having the "likes" readily visible to any members -- even just FT moderators -- secure the purpose of "anonymity" of "likes"?