I'm less confident as I can see on some forums and threads a snarky reply to a new member earning a bunch of 'helpful' votes even though the post wasn't helpful at all but quite the opposite. Others may agree, for example, that new members should dig for rather than be spoon fed answers and so could use the tool as a sign of agreement with the snark rather than its intended purpose.

I'm not convinced this is actually something FT needs this far along the line regardless of what others sites do on the topic. Just MHO.

As a newbie I can share that I think the moderators do an excellent job of organizing the posts well enough that the truly useful posts are easy to spot.

While being able to search or sort by "most helpful" votes might be interesting, it probably won't make my ability to use the FT any more valuable.

Who knows, unless the poll really isn't "anonymous". [I expect that by now there is actually a genuine majority (of the minority of FTers which cared to vote) that does support their own idea of what they wish/dream this "like" feature to be.]

That said, this is FT -- where playing games even with reputation features for dissing FT member birthdays has had a history, a history disbelieved at first but confirmed nonetheless. Even the RBPs have been gamed on FT.

Have more FT members voted for this poll now than did in at least one of the last four TB general elections? Yes. At least we have more member engagement with TB in some form.

Now I am insulted that you had not insulted me.Happy birthday to you?

I figure I have a chance of one in 365 that today is your birthday. Next year, my chances are reduced even further to one in 366......and I believe that is a positive development.

Thank you for pointing that out...

Why are you accusing members of accusing TalkBoard members of engaging in dishonest behavior?
I've seen this in other forums as well. I've seen likes being given to people who have "yelled" at others or given snarky answers.

I answered that question upthread

So, rather than copy/paste to answer it again, you'll just post that?

Why the attitude against those who are opposed to this sort of button?

Some interesting questions have been posed.

The poll can not be gamed in some of the ways implied; though lobbying and encouraging or discouraging other members can certainly be done (e.g. using signatures), it's legitimate.

The poll is entirely anonymous when it is set up to be anonymous, as this one is. Members, including Moderators, can not see who voted.

The parameters of the poll itself was established by the TalkBoard's request to the Moderators through their elected leader, iirc.

The wiki contains a POV summation and points pro and con. Any member with 90 days and 90 posts can edit a wikipost, so other pro or con points can be added. (Changes are documented always, so that's a check on any disruptive actions that potentially could be carried out.)

This poll will close on Jan 17, 15 at 8:14 am so perhaps discussing the actual topic is more of use to TalkBoard members and others than discussing how a poll works or if it can be gamed. I'm sure it could be, but the chances are nearly infinitesimally small. :)

If there is to be such a button, please make sure that it conveys Like, not Helpful. People will Like what they agree with, regardless of the merit of the post.

I personally do not care for either sort of button because there is the risk that a high number of Likes for a given post will dissuade people from posting alternative views.

Yes, I expect people with 24,000 posts to scroll up rather than ask something that's already been discussed.

I have no issue with those opposed to this button, I'm leaning towards voting no on it. I have issue with people who are furthering this load of bunk that the reason the poll didn't go the way they wanted is a vast conspiracy leading to the gaming of the system. It's so insulting to me as a Flyertalker and TalkBoard member.

You don't walk up to a group of people talking and then just randomly start shouting about whatever you want to talk about. Just like in "real life" there are rules to be followed. If you don't take time to observe the community before posting, then you deserve whatever dislikes you get.

That said, no forum would support ANY sort of action that can remotely discourage noobs. More members == more pageviews == more $$$. :rolleyes:

An alternative: Perhaps until that person is an "established" member (like post count 100...or whatever it is to get into Omni, like that's some sort of reward), votes on their posts are ignored. Not ideal. You'd probably still have to count their votes (+ or -), because otherwise they won't feel like their input matters in any way.

It doesn't matter what the person intends with their vote. It's the perception of the user that received the vote. Some people are very thin skinned.

And you would be wrong :p Great example of the confusing messages that likes/dislikes send.

Go to fatwallet & slickdeals and search for their threads discussing the addition of voting. The real problem here is there is no clear story for exactly how the votes will be used.

A few examples:
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/902629/
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/903976/
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/off-topic/326900/
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/1286031/
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/1243033/

Suggestion: Go sign up as a member. Tell the community you're a mod at another site that's considering adding voting. See the sort of responses you get.

I agree a trial is worthwhile, but I'd suggest a limited scale, maybe 3-4 public forums. As for the second part, not sure if serious...

Moderators don't organize posts. Can you clarify what you're referring to?

FWIW, I did read the wiki before voting "yes." I didn't just join FT to vote, I wasn't lobbied, and (fortunate for FT) I'm not on the TB. And since voting, I've read the last ~200 posts or so.

I have to agree with the sentiments expressed by some that this seems a disproportionate amount of angst for what in other communities might be considered a minor, ancillary feature. I believe, though, that a large degree of that concern is because we all value FT and want it to continue to be great and even get better.

Although mentioned in the wiki, my reason for wanting a "Like" wasn't substantively mentioned in the last 200 posts - and it's from the perspective of the giver, not the recipient. Some comments here have focused on gaming and on people trying to accrue "Likes." I'm sure that's a possibility and if people feel like they want to measure their online self-worth that way, that's an issue that won't be addressed through any single discussion-forum feature.

Rather, I don't expect that I'd be accruing lots of "Likes" from my posts - I don't post very often and when I do, it's usually either asking a question or going for a cheap laugh - sadly, not usually providing content that's terribly insightful or helpful. My interest in having this feature is because almost every time I dive into a new thread across FT, I find posts that are great - they're particularly clever, they're really helpful, or (as in this thread) handle some nasty comments with tremendous patience and aplomb.

Most of the time, I'm not going to clutter a thread with a +1. The idea of a "Like" would give me a way to innocuously recognize someone's efforts on a good post. It's an electronic token of appreciation.

Someone chooses to game it and artificially get their "Like" count up on a specific post or posts? Seems like that will be self-policing pretty fast. If I see that someone's posts are always heavily Liked when their content doesn't (IMHO) warrant it, then I'll start to discount that person's posts. And in any event, the stakes on this seem pretty low.

All that having been said, in the pantheon of features that could enhance FT, this one is in the "nice-to-have" category for me. Despite its length and occasional vitriol, I do appreciate this thread and, more generally, the opportunity to provide input on the direction of FT.

From skimming quickly, it sounds like they have a full reputation system, and the ability to downvote posts, not just a Like/+1/Upvote. It also sounds like they may feed back into how posts are displayed, although I'm vague on whether that's ordering rather than most-recently-active as things default to here or just showing red vs. green count on the main forum page.

If the idea here is to go full-hog to that sort of system, I agree that it's not a good fit for FT, and probably not a good idea. We don't really do "directory" content of that sort, except maybe on the Mileage Run/Hotel Deals forums and CC.

I think the main question is "what's the intent of this feature, and how will it be used?" -- my own preference is for a limited form, basically to improve signal to noise of +1 posts, and improve engagement for people who don't post a lot. The more elaborate it gets, the less I support it; in particular, since we're not screening things (well, maybe a bit on the MR/Hotel deals, but I rarely use those) there's absolutely no benefit to down-voting.

How do you think it is taken care of with self-policing? Not sure how that would work.

People clearly think that post count is a valid metric that means something here @ FT. Some people with a lot of posts often tend to get away with a lot of crap that doesn't belong. If they now also have a lot of "likes", most people won't look to see if they were really deserved. They'll just trust the system.

Edit: 2 additional things from the wiki:
My comment on post count reminded me how much some care about this. So the people we REALLY don't want to hear from (the ones that already share their thoughts on *everything*, whether they have experience on the topic or not), will continue to clog up the thread.
This can be done today, and is entirely unrelated to a voting system (use the favorites/bookmarks option of your browser).

Thanks for these links! I plan to read them all.

One intriguing suggestion was to allow negative feedback but put a floor of zero on the total. This would allow unhelpful information not to show as helpful without discouraging the poster unnecessarily.