Sorry, nsx. I misunderstood. I thought that we were considering having a "+1" or "Helpful" button on individual posts. I completely agree that there should not be totals listed by member of all his/her posts.

That is what's up for discussion.

I wasn't quibbling I was correcting you when you used another term when I'd said 'helpful' in my post. You may find them one and the same but I don't which is why I chose the term I had.

Completely agree and it's that forum more than OMNI which makes me want to opt it out if possible from any form of 'helpful' button.

Same league? Of course not? Same style? Of course.

The back-and-forth we're having right now - sharing opinions, disagreeing, providing support for our statements - is social by its very nature. If you don't think this is social media, then I don't know what to say.

Why would TB members need to see how much a member is liked? How does that facilitate their role on FT?

If this is a great idea, why would it need to be able to be turned off? Seems logically inconsistent.

In turning off my ability to see the data, please also turn off my ability to see all the discussion, meta-discussion, and arguments on the same topic.

Certainly when it comes to the original claim about OMNI/PR, the distinction is a quibble. There's no content there that could be confused with being "helpful" in a practical sense.

Overall, I do think it's a quibble and while they are not literally one and the same, in practice most people can and will use them interchangeably even if some people will choose to read them literally.

To my mind, that speaks for choosing a less specific wording if given the choice, but as I said up-thread, I think most people are sophisticated enough not to read too much into votes even if given a more specific label like "helpful."

I believe it was phrased as an wish for a absolutely mandatory feature of the system by those who raised it, not a nice to have.

And not only the display. The opt out that was asked for was both on views and on participation. Just like nkedel says, opt out on participation could be disruptive, and that is why it has to be considered even more carefully at the early stages of the (possible) implementation of this feature.

Therefore, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if nsx would move this to the mandatory list.


On views, the purpose of the opt out is to save screen space, to not clutter the view or draw attention to something the user has no interest in and to be presented the threads without any filtering, re-ordering or other manipulation of the discussion flow (should such functions be developed).

On participation, the purpose of the opt out is again to keep unnecessary screen objects out of sight, even though this might be a minor issue - a like button can be constructed without stealing much space. I could even be implemented as a "Post-tools drop-down", analogous to the thread-tools and the forum-tools drop-downs.

But more importantly, I think the opt out for participation includes the possibility to not have your posts voted on, not having your posts or username appearing in top-lists or automatically featured on the blogs, frontpage et.c. (should such functions be implemented).

Opt out of participation could be implemented with minimal disruption to the function - the like button could be greyed-out on posts made by opted-out poster, and if clicking/hoovering the message "poster have opted out of like system" displayed.

The comparison between Flyertalk and TripAdvisor seems entertaining, at least.

Planning a trip, I turned to TA for suggestions on a seafood restaurant at the destination. One of the reviewers had written 16 reviews, but had a 25-fold number of "helpful" votes.

One certainly hopes FT attracts at least some members from the same cohort of super posters...
:p

Are you sure it wouldn't be determined by the forum's moderators? They seem to decide whether the forum witll have a lounge thread and whether there will be Ambassadors for the forum. This decision seems similar in spirit.

I vote no
 

Ugh, no. Please don't implement a Like button. I don't care if other people "like" something or not. If they have something useful to add to a conversation (either positive or negative), then let them post.

Besides, those folks who like the "sound" of their own "voice" will still post stuff like "Yeah, I agree" or other <5 word responses that add little to conversation. I don't think they'll switch to using a "Like" button, so it probably won't cut down on the pointless posts.

Of course, I lurk 99% of the time, so perhaps the whole "don't respond if you have nothing valuable to add" is just a reflection of my own personal nature. :)

I'll survive if it's implemented, but it does seem pointless to me.

Moderators may have input and they can always make recommendations to the Community Director, but I see this as a features and functionality issue on which TalkBoard is supposed to take the lead in making recommendations.

As I said, the latter is not something I support. No consequences should flow from vote count of your posts, other than a possible inclusion in TalkMail or a curated FT home page. Both of those are built by people who can read.

The former sounds difficult to implement, but I will ask. The software would need to allow or not allow the button post by post, according to the preferences of the poster. That seems over the top, especially given that only upvotes are allowed. Besides, if you disable display any Helpful votes, how would you know whether anyone had voted on your posts?

You're presuming that everyone wants to know this information. I don't, and I suspect I'm not alone. :)

That was not my point. I was responding "the possibility to not have your posts voted on".

My point was that disabling the display of the Helpful button and Helpful counts would make it difficult for you to become annoyed at how many or how few likes your posts receive.

Well, so you are saying that
a) only usage is instant feedback
b) except possibly some things you find useful

That is exactly why I think the opt-out must be on the table from start.



Even to only display instant feedback between viewer and poster, the software will need to keep track of each and every upvote ever made. So when someone says "Hey, we have all this data stored, why not put it to use" and "The xxx-site is doing it and we should too" and "It is such a small step from what we do today, so no one can have anything against that" I think there should be some sort of insurance for us who provide the content to this site to opt-out from usage we are not comfortable with.



I don't know why an opt-out should be more difficult to implement. The software needs to render one like-button for each and every post it displays. It will be unique to each post, because the software must know which like button you click on.

It will also need to know who is watching the like button (because if you already liked a post, I guess you are not allowed to like it again, right?).

So to render each and every like button the software already needs to keep track of both the viewer and the post. And the software already keeps track of the owner of each and every post. The step to check the preferences of the owner of the post shouldn't be difficult.


The software already checks the viewer preferences before rendering posts (ignore list and signatures). Checking the poster preferences can't be more difficult.


Because I'm suddenly featured on the front page, referenced in a blog or put on a toplist or my post is suddenly used out of context. Your second sentence says you already have intentions to use the collected data in other ways than just to provide feedback.

You're presuming I care how many or how few likes my posts gather. I don't. As I posted above, I don't have a Sally Field complex. ;)