And implying that a simple like will solve everything isn't very persuasive to me. ;)

Some will like like & do it; others won't & will still do +1. To imply that +1 doesn't provide positive feedback is inaccurate. Bit silly to think otherwise. FTers will choose their own methods of providing positive reinforcement, whether it be like, +1, or actually writing in appreciation. @:-)

I can say that even if I vote for like (should we actually get to that stage), I won't be voting for the big yellow thing you've got going there. That's as bad as the gazillion frigging avatars on MP. :p :D

Cheers.

Pretty much sums it up for me as well :)

I should have said this the first time around; I was thinking it, but tried to avoid saying it outright, hoping you'd get the hint and notice what you're doing.

That's a strawman. No one has said 100% of people will never make a +1 post again. What I (and others) have been saying is that a large majority will indeed click "+1" or click "Like" instead of posting a reply with the typed out letters "+1". Also, no one has said typing out +1 does not provide positive feedback.

(Wikipedia: "A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.")

I wouldn't either.

Ah, I need a 'hint' to say what I think & what others have suggested & even an education lesson to boot on what I mean/say. Got it. :rolleyes: Not really a strawman, but you go for it Hans.

Hey, at least we're in agreement on the big ugly yellow thing & hopefully not implementing a gazillion avatars. :D Talk about a waste of real estate ;)

As I mentioned I'm not set one way or the other on this. While I wouldn't find it useful as I usually base my thoughts on what's actually posted & not a +1 or like ;), I know others would like it (pun intended :D).

Cheers.

Sorry, my comment about having hinted was not meant to portray you negatively, but rather the truth is my hint was unclear and I should have been blunt to start with. I had gone back and read my hint and it was far too subtle. As for posting the Wikipedia definition of strawman, I'm sure you already knew what strawman meant, but I've found a surprising number of people don't know what it means, so I just wanted to be clear on its meaning: it's about the argument, not about the person.

I'm delighted you're against wasting real estate!! :D:D;):D

why not reformat to - "these people agree with this post" and not having any numbers or counters or statistics

Amazon Has A Similar Approach for Reviews
 

Amazon allows readers to indicate whether a review was helpful, thus allowing users to sift through the bulk of reviews to focus on comments that others found helpful. A think a similar mechanism here would enhance the utility of FT.

As an Amazon user, I find that a very easy system to use, as well as useful when choosing reviews to read. I suspect it's easier to implement on VB, and it takes up very little space.

If a ratings system is to be plemented, maybe this is the one besteetimg the KISS criterion and may be the least susceptible to abuse as well.

I think a rating system for posts would greatly enhance FT's value and also streamline some of the more debated threads; so it would be even better, in my view, to vote up and down each post, such as in some disquus fora.

This would be a somewhat gentle way of saying, without censoring, that the community agree / does not agree with what someone is saying, and I believe it would abbreviate some more "stubborn" discussions.

Amazon has an indirect way to to this, geared to their circumstances, as they push to the forefront the reviews that are more helpfull (this would not be directly possible here) and even, in the discussions that follow, they put as out-of-view a post that had been massively down voted.

Tom911 is mostly correct. There were actually two rating systems, one for "Reputation" which applied to particular posts and the other for forums.

Both of these systems were badly abused by an immature group of people who used them to gang up on people they did not like.

Where he is wrong is in saying "the whole system was anonymous". That was true in the beginning but Randy then changed the system (in so far as "Reputation" was concerned) and did so retroactively. At that point, the abuse stopped.

I have absolutely no problem with the OP's suggestion as long as it is not anonymous.

Popularity contests, gotta luv 'em. ;)

The "abuse" didn't stop even when the founder of FT did the "de-anonymous" thing after the "reputation" feature was turned on and used in ways that some of its fans didn't anticipate.

If +1 means Agree, then use the word Agree.

I wonder if we could have separate icons for Thanks and Agree?

Helpful is more precise than Thanks, so I "like" that. ;)

Being able to filter on Helpfulness would probably be very hard for vBulletin, but you never know for sure unless you ask.

I'm leaning toward asking IB what it would take to implement separate icons for Agree and for Helpful. (Or use Thanks for Helpful if Amazon has some legal monopoly on that term.) Second I would like to ask whether filtering posts on Helpful rating would be feasible.

If people used the Wiki feature more often, filtering might not be necessary. On the other hand, filtering would be a great tool for people looking for the best content to add to a Wiki.

I like both ideas either of a disquus type up/down vote (I think FW also has something similar?), or the Amazon-type helpful rating. Maybe the Amazon approach would have more actual utility - I like it on Amazon, at least. Particularly if one could sort by helpful rating in some manner.

I don't particularly like <rimshot> the MilePoint "like" system. Of course I do use it since it's what they have, but I'm not sure it adds as much value as a couple of the other ideas above. It ties into the "status" system on MP, which again is of questionable value - I wouldn't want to see that setup here on FT, personally.

Please turn on this feature!

There are threads like this one that need this option:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/hertz...s-only-12.html

And this one:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/hotel...elzoo-etc.html

We need to be able to say thank you without adding to the clutter. It will encourage more people to contribute.

And to the many who have posted in this thread it has no value to them, what harm is it? You can ignore it, and ignore it easier than all the "thank you" posts.

Ha ok so this is one thread with one too many "like" gags but that won't stop me stringing it along...

.... I do think FT seriously, seriously needs some way to better differentiate contributors than post count. I am frustrated by certain posted with "evangelist" status who make posts that are 100% factually incorrect. Of course I won't name names, but there are some folks here who have over 10k posts and will come into a discussion and make a statement as if it's complete fact and I just know it's wrong. I need a way to thumbs down these people, and people need to be able to thumbs up the people who make genuinely useful contributions. I don't think "liking" individual posts does anything to fix that unless likes gets linked to some overall score but I think something along the lines of SlickDeals rep system could be very helpful here to distinguish those who just post endless junk.