Deal or No Deal?

BritRael

Martyn, although I like the idea of the 'thanks' button, I think that sometimes it can be a bit misleading. i.e. when you see a post with x amount of thanks it appears that the consensus of opinion is in favour whereas of course, the opposite could be true. At present, if somebody disagrees with a post, they can quote it and reply. However, if the thread is popular and there are multiple pages to wade through I tend to skip posts and not necessarily read every one to see if there are responses.

In the interests of a balanced argument, could you add two more buttons? - 'agree and disagree'. :cool: :T

er...do you agree or disagree?

Barneysmom

I like it the way it is?

dmg24

A 'No Thanks' button seems very negative, especially in cases where someone will click it but not leave any feedback as to why they disagree. It is usually pretty easy to scan posts following a point of interest to gauge other opinions.

BargainGalore

Me too.........

Barneysmom wrote: »

I like it the way it is?

BritRael

dmg24 wrote: »

A 'No Thanks' button seems very negative, ..

I said an 'agree or disagree' button, not a 'no thanks' (what would be the point of that? ).

The idea is this; you get somebody starting a controversial thread, say on anti-imigration for example. If you got 20 BNP supporters clicking the 'thankyou' button, it would appear that the thread has widespread support. Whereas, if there were also 'agree and disagree' buttons, you might get say 20 agree and 500 disagree. This would be a more accurate reflection of the consensus imho. Make sense now? :cool:
Obviously, this system would not suit every thread. i.e if somebody was giving advice on how to bake a cake, 'thankyou' would be more suitable than 'agree' or 'disagree'.

dmg24 wrote: »

..It is usually pretty easy to scan posts following a point of interest to gauge other opinions.

I agree, when there are not many responses. However, many threads here have responses in the hundreds/thousands. Do you really think that everybody looks at them all? I mean, you didn't actually read mine, and its only one! With an agree or disagree button on the very first one, you would instantly see the mood of the people.

Another point is that it gives people a quick opportunity to contribute in a thread. If you take a quick look at the list of posts, you will see the number of 'views' is often totally dis-proportionate to the number of posts (i.e. this one has had 3 responses, but 76 views). This is because people often do not have the time or inclination to post a reply, particularly when its a delicate subject. Whereas, you could contribute to every thread at the click of one button with the simple addition of two extra buttons.
Makes sense to me. Anybody else agree?

catman-without_wings

I like it just the way it is to be honest.

blaque*angel

Al_Mac wrote: »

Always helps if you spell a person's name correctly. If Martin is anything like me, he'd probably ignore your request, due to your lack of effort.

simple error????

dmg24

BritRael wrote: »

I said an 'agree or disagree' button, not a 'no thanks' (what would be the point of that? ).

The idea is this; you get somebody starting a controversial thread, say on anti-imigration for example. If you got 20 BNP supporters clicking the 'thankyou' button, it would appear that the thread has widespread support. Whereas, if there were also 'agree and disagree' buttons, you might get say 20 agree and 500 disagree. This would be a more accurate reflection of the consensus imho. Make sense now? :cool:
Obviously, this system would not suit every thread. i.e if somebody was giving advice on how to bake a cake, 'thankyou' would be more suitable than 'agree' or 'disagree'.

The majority of posts on this moneysaving forum are moneysaving deals. People click Thanks to thank the OP for alerting them to this deal. Feel free to clarify how changing this to Agree or Disagree would make any sense?

BritRael

Al_Mac wrote: »

Always helps if you spell a person's name correctly...

lol - 'Martyn' is the spelling of my nephews name.

Al_Mac wrote: »

...If Martin is anything like me, he'd probably ignore your request, due to your lack of effort.

If he was as pedantic as you my friend, I wouldn't be on the site. Luckily, with the majority of posts here, I've seen that people are (by and large) pretty helpful and ignore the numerous spelling/grammatical errors. But, you always get one...:rolleyes:

BritRael

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritRael
I said an 'agree or disagree' button, not a 'no thanks' (what would be the point of that? ).

The idea is this; you get somebody starting a controversial thread, say on anti-imigration for example. If you got 20 BNP supporters clicking the 'thankyou' button, it would appear that the thread has widespread support. Whereas, if there were also 'agree and disagree' buttons, you might get say 20 agree and 500 disagree. This would be a more accurate reflection of the consensus imho. Make sense now? :cool:
Obviously, this system would not suit every thread. i.e if somebody was giving advice on how to bake a cake, 'thankyou' would be more suitable than 'agree' or 'disagree'.

dmg24 wrote: »

The majority of posts on this moneysaving forum are moneysaving deals. People click Thanks to thank the OP for alerting them to this deal. Feel free to clarify how changing this to Agree or Disagree would make any sense?

zzzz... You seem to have a problem with reading my friend. Thats two of my posts that you've replied to and not read either. :rolleyes:

If you actually read my post that you've quoted, you've answered your own question... :rolleyes:

As for 'the majority of posts are about moneysaving', I've not seen the stats. I've only been coming on here for a few weeks (although, as some other helpful person pointed out I joined a few months ago ) and I've 'thanked' many people. However, not one of those was for 'moneysaving'. It may surprise you, but there are numerous other forums on here that are nothing to do with money at all. :rolleyes: