I for one intend no such thing. This discussion should have demonstrated the degree of care I will take before calling for a vote on anything. For example, a path to forum-specific appearance of reader feedback is IMHO essential.

I have only sent a couple of PMs to one member on this issue, and that was only to gain a better understanding of his or her point of view. Nobody has PM'ed me either. I don't know why anyone would lobby on a such a minor matter. It's not something crucial like post count. :)

If an upvote (or whatever) is taken by FTers as an indicator of quality or usefulness, there needs to be some mechanism to deal with incorrect or dated info.

More relevant, some member are not 17 year college kids, keen to accrue 500 Facebook type 'likes' and become homecoming Queen until someone games them out of their crown next week. This pace will become Clique City.

If such a juvenile system is adopted, there MUST be an option for any members bored with such irrelevant sideshows to turn it OFF from Day #1 as was a clear option with the total flop "FRIENDS" feature we already have had for years, that serves no purpose either. IB cannot tell us THAT was possible to opt out of, and this is not. Nonsense. I own a very large board with over 4 million posts and the software and free Mods offer endless options in those regards.

It earns nobody a single mile or point and that is WHAT FT'ers are here for. THAT is what makes this board great - we avoid sorority gimmicks. Even avatars are not approved.

If I need to know what anyone had for breakfast, or what colour shoes that wore today, I'll join their twitter feed. Don't hold your breath for that to occur. :cool:

I think a 'like' button is the perfect way to make a contribution to the board and how appreciation for those who have taken the trouble to post, without having to elongate the thread unecessarily. It would allow those who rarely comment to take a more active participation in the board if they wish ....

I would welcome the button and would enjoy using it...

I hope it happens and can't see why it would be a problem.

:)

If users who receive likes/helpful post reports are going to be notified, or if it will show up in profiles, then it won't be applied just to posts, and it will turn into a "reputation" or popularity contest.

Didn't point fingers at you nsx. ;) Any FT member (or TB member) could send out PMs.

Obviously this isn't a minor matter. If anything it's more important than post count because it directly impacts FTers viewing & use of FT.

Agree. It's one of the weaknesses of the current system. One that can be solved as it currently is, but w/ the helpful button makes it more difficult.

This, to me, is one of the most critical items that must be implemented should this move forward. Just like FTers can turn on/off signatures & put someone on ignore, they must have the ability to turn off the like/helpful function. There is no reason those that don't want their views cluttered or see like/helpfuls given to incorrect info or those who could give two patooties about whether their own or someone else's posts got likes should have to view them.

1. Well, if helpful is so helpful & won't be gamed as you, nsx & others assure those of us who have the concern that it could be, then by that same argument a nonhelpful won't be gamed either. You can't have it both ways ;) FWIW - I don't think there's enough support & I'm not wildly behind the idea. I just want to point out the fallacy of the argument.

2. Actually that's not how the system as it's being proposed. It may be because of input on this thread, but it's not necessarily there yet. And there's no word by IB on whether they can separate it/make it to posts & not attached to members. Heck, the recently concluded trial shows that it does attach to members.

I'm not sure just clicking on a button that says helpful or like is "actively participating on the board". If anything it might decrease the number of comments, including those that provide more info. As someone said on the BA thread, before he would comment/provide more info. Now he just has to click a button & all is done, no additional info given.

Cheers.

+1 - Would one possible solution (not knowing whether the technological capability is there to do this or not) be for mods/admins to be able to "reset" a post's usefulness/helpfulness if it's found to be outdated?

Don't know. Worth asking. The other question is, do mods want to add that to their list of responsibilities?

Cheers.

That would be my question... Do mods want to take on that as well? Remember, we've seen posts from some mods in the past generally saying they have a ton of work or similar.

Agree 100%. Without the negative version of the feature ("hot helpful" in this instance) I think the feared (one might even say, fear-mongered) "gaming" -- talk about an overused, nondescript expression-- won't be anywhere near the issue that it was with "reputation." Where people took their old grudges against members out from he day it was turned on.

Put differently, if people want to mark a post/poster as "helpful" how does that impact those who -don't- get (or want) such "votes"? If they don't care, shouldn't they just not care?

i don't think this will be an issue TBH since posts are time stamped and of course all great information posted on FT will ultimately lose its relevance over time. I don't recall ever receiving complaints of this nature about short +1 type posts

If you're going to call an argument fallacious, then you need to illustrate why. You didn't do that. :)

If the only option is "Helpful," then the only possible outcomes are that post is shown as being helpful or that post has no rating.

If you have a "Helpful" and a "Not Helpful" option, then there are three possible outcomes: the post is shown as being helpful, the post has no rating, or the post receives a negative score.

In the last case--the post receiving a negative score--you have the potential for that poster to be seen poorly by other members reading the thread. That creates ill-will on the part of the poster towards the members who rated him or her poorly. That creates animosity and the potential for inter-personal conflict.

If the worst that can happen is that your post gets no score, then it's kind of hard for you to get offended and pitch a snit fit about the rating.

It's for this exact reason why Facebook does not have a "dislike" button, and it works quite well there. I have never ONCE seen anyone complain that someone else's posts got more likes than his/her own.

Well, the head proponent of this proposal (and, by reading your posts, the one who is attempting to unilaterally push this through) didn't support the implementation as it was shown during the test period and has, as I recall, said that he would prefer it be tied to the posts rather than the poster and has agreed that a site-wide counter is potentially counter-productive. So, while I can't speak for him, I think it's safe to say that if that's how the chief proponent of this proposal says it should be, then that's what the proposal will be. :)

For that matter, every day I look at this thread the spread of "support" vs. "oppose" grows a little bit. Yes, just marginally and of no real significance if taken day over day (or even on the whole,) but, unambiguously, a growing poll-participant consensus in favor, FWIW (and it may well be with nothing.)

Are some people here still-- with straight face-- seriously standing by these far-out claims of vote-rigging, "sudden, unexplainable change in totals" type-chicanery and "new members registering just to vote in this poll" :rolleyes: ?

If so, it's equal parts hilarious and completely preposterous. Possibly even with apologies in order from those who made these ridiculous, insulting and 100% unsupported accusations against fellow members just because the poll wasn't going the way they wished.

We've seen people complaining that others received likes while they did not. How is that not creating ill-will, or at least the potential for it?

I do not see any benefit, and plenty of possible problems with, a "dislike" or "unhelpful" button in the context of a conversational forum.

Given that a separate Q&A section isn't in the cards, I don't think there's any reason to consider that. FWIW, I'd prefer to see a "like"/"thanks"/"helpful" option be non-anonymous (even if you have to click through to see who "liked" it).

As for a difference in who's posted in favor, and the vote counts, look at it this way: one of the benefits for a "like" button is to give a way for people who are less inclined to post a way of saying they appreciated a post. Arguably, it's the same with voting: it's much easier to click "yes" and "submit" on the vote than it is to actually write out an argument in favor.