Isn't an inaccurate post unhelpful though?
In at least some of the threads where I've seen the IBTL posts, it's in large part joking and building community in those forums.

Let's try it this way....

Member#1 makes a post
Member#2 clicks and marks the post as helpful
Members 3, 4, & 5 report the post saying the post is not helpful
Moderators review the post and while not helpful, it is accurate post and within ToS (i.e. "sorry, and no matter what you may think, what the agent told you is correct"*)

Is a moderator supposed to "un-helpful" the post?

*sorry, and I know there's a better example, but that's the best I can come up with on a lazy Saturday night sleep deprived Sunday :)

No. Are you advocating they should? Why should they? You're intimately familiar with "Likes" on Facebook--no one has the power to remove "Likes" there, and that system works just fine.

I think this is a perfectly workable system:

Bolding mine: And that's all I asked and you are the only TB member to actually answer my question ^ as I do not think moderators should be in the business of un-helpfulling a post.

Now as to facebook and likes and flyertalk and likes, yes it does work on facebook (even when it's raining ;)) but afaik, there isn't a way to game the system on facebook and as has been discussed numerous times in this thread, a) this is not facebook and b) this is flyertalk where gaming the system is a way of life ;)

I do not believe so either...

...and jackal is not currently a member of TalkBoard.

I don't think a "Like" or "helpful" button is necessary, or that either will provide any substantive and positive impact on FT. On boards where the function is provided, I ignore it. I don't need to know that 7 other people have found a post to useful to consider it useful. I reach that conclusion on my own.

That said, I wouldn't object to seeing a "helpful" button added. If it helps some people evaluate the utility of a given post, I see no problem in adding that functionality.

Adding a "like" button is a juvenile idea, IMHO. It has a sort of Sally Field aspect to it - "you like me, you really like me." ;)

Whoops! And I think I see the door to the penalty box opening... ;)

The system as I see it being proposed here (and before SkiAdcock tries to challenge me on this, I'll clarify :p) by nsx, who is the chief proponent of this idea and without whose blessing no proposal will likely move forward, works pretty much exactly liek Facebook's. So how can Facebook's implementation not be gamed but this one can? Why can't we create one that can't be gamed here? That seems to be exactly what is being proposed here.

On Facebook, most have a limited scope of who can see/like/comment on posts. As such, the potential for gaming is reduced. Here, there isn't a a limited scope of who can see/like/comment on posts in most forums.

...but they very much do get gamed as a perceived way to increase the number of people who see public posts. People/businesses who use FB for publicity absolutely DO ask users to "like" their posts. The idea being, rightly or wrongly, that it will increase the odds of the posts showing up in other friends/followers' feeds.

Here, that seems LESS likely, unless I missed a separate part of the proposal that the "like" systems feed back to something. What's to game?

So?

I think people who assert that other people will be assessing the credibility of posts based on the number of "likes" (or "helpfuls") received are expecting far too much attention to such things.

If there's some broader count of "likes" received, that's something to be gamed -- I suppose it's kind of like all the OMNI/Games idiocy to boost post count -- but I still can't see why anyone should be expected to care about those numbers. I remember other people felt strongly about the whole "OMNI doesn't count" change, and I didn't "get" that either.

I haven't seen anyone suggesting we go to a full reputation system or highlighting posts based on "likes" -- both of which would be more amenable to manipulating the numbers, and I don't see any reason why we should do so and plenty of reasons not to, but I can't see how a a positive-only system, and especially one kept track of only on individual posts, adds any of those issues.

As I said up-thread, a simple system could be good for eliminating "thanks" and "me too" posts, and giving lower-engagement users a way of engaging with threads. Both seem like a plus, and the former in particular might improve the signal-to-noise ratio of some threads.

Nah...

...you get a Tootsie Pop anyway.

I don't like this; it often ends up being a rep contest and that's never good. It also gets distracting and does it really add content to the thread? Will threads that people "like" look bigger on the page or they will just look the same? If they look the same then what's the point? Just more stuff to read.

However on many forums there is an option to pose a question (ie: there is a checkbox that asks if this is a question oppose to just a discussion); in this case, I think a "Answered" or "This is helpful" button is appropriate. Once a question is answered, the thread should be closed. There should be no reason to bump up a five year old thread. A lot of information become outdated in this day and age very quickly.

I oppose this, but if it's offered, I hope there is an option for members to turn off seeing this. This I think is the best of both worlds.

Well, the other thing on FB is that (if I'm not mistaken) if you've "liked" something you tend to get their info/notices as well as have their name show up in things you've "liked", so they get exposure through several avenues from that "like".

With that said, I'm worried about gaming and ego-stroking as an unwanted side-effect here. At the very least, if this is implemented I would like to be able to totally disable the function (i.e. "See no likes, get no likes, offer no likes").

While I support the proposal, I agree that a way to turn off viewing the likes would be a good thing if it's practical to add this to the software.

BTW - there will be a notice re: this issue in tomorrow's Talkmail & directing people to the poll/this thread. In chatting with canarsie, I agreed to do a 'wiki' for pros/cons, questions, etc, since most FTers aren't going to wade through such a long thread & the wiki can be the 'cliff notes' version. Heck, it's taking me a while to wade through this thread, the one in BA, and the 2 Omnis to pull out the pros, the cons, the questions (and/or answers if there are some), concerns, and condense them into something manageable and easy to read. Wiki has to be done before TM goes out in the morning. No pressure :D

Cheers.