Thanks and No Thanks Button

wolfman

Ok so we have a Thanks button, but how about a No Thanks, or Not Helpful button. Kind of like Digg.

It's just a suggestion, but I've seen on occassions poor advice, where people have Thanked the post believing it to be accurate. A No Thanks button would help identify poor or inacurrate posts or poor advice.

I know it's open to abuse and won't be entirely easy to implement. Just a suggestion though. Thoughts...?

Scarlett1

no thanks cant think of anything worse tbh

Quasar

As I understand it, the thanks button was introduced in order to avoid cluttering threads with posts just saying "Oh that's great, thanks", which would be unfair on users on dialup and a bit boring for everyone.

Moreover, here is already enough animosity between a handful of members on this forum caused by looking at who thanks whom, and figuring out alliances and rivalries - "he/she disagrees with you and so do I, so they are on my side and you ain't". Something like that. A No-thanks button would simply hasten the descent of more threads into a war of egos.

seven-day-weekend

People may simply be thanking the person for taking the trouble to answer their question.

How is a 'no thanks' button going to help them know whether the advice is accurate or not?

Murtle

Thanks doesn't indicate the accuracy of a post it's merely as mentioned previously a way to prevent the threads getting clogged up. If you believe a post to be wrong or unhelpful then post the correct or helpful information. I think the reverse of Thanks is not to click at all......

wolfman

seven-day-weekend wrote:

People may simply be thanking the person for taking the trouble to answer their question.

How is a 'no thanks' button going to help them know whether the advice is accurate or not?

Ok, ignore the thanks, and no thanks example. I think people are misunderstanding the idea I'm trying to get across. I often use the thanks button when thanking for a useful piece of information, hence if a post has been thanked a lot, I see it as a good post.

What I was suggesting is something similar to https://www.digg.com. Where by people either approve, or disapprove of threads and posts.

Given the amount of advice being posted on these forums, it could be a handy way of identifying good/accurate posts, from poor ones.

Like I said the system is open to abuse, but there are ways of reducing it.

sra

If only Digg.com would release the software they use - or vbulletin introduce something similar

I love self-moderation

I just go there and select to only show me comments that have, for example, 10 diggs or higher - cuts right through all the rubbish

http://www.digg.com/videos_educational/Entire_Top_Gear_Series_Available_for_Free_at_BBC2

Murtle

Digg is more like wikapedia, which is used more for information. Much of MSE is subjective and can be right today, but wrong tomorrow for the same person. I personally don't see the requirement for a no thanks button, if you see an answer you don't agree with, voice your opinion and your reasons why.It's upto the people reading the information to ensure they check out the details before applying it to themselves.M

Rex_Mundi

I can see this idea too open to abuse/problems. There are definately a couple of small cliques on these boards. What would happen if someone had a disagreement with one member of a clique, and then all the clique members decided to hit the disaprove button for the posts the other member made, even if the posts were useful?

There are also sometimes when a problem can be solved in two or three different ways successfully. If you post one good answer, does that mean the other two (equally valid) answers should get a vote against them?

I can see this idea causing more work for the abuse team, and causing more animosity/bad blood on the boards, rather than serving a useful purpose on the site.

wolfman

Sra's example is how I meant it could benefit.

Digg isn't really a Wiki. It's a place where people post news, articles etc... which get rated. People can also comment on the post (which adds opinion and subjectivity), so it shares similar functionality to that of a forum, just that they're posting answers to start with rather than questions which get answered (like here).

Rex_Mundi wrote:

I can see this idea too open to abuse/problems. There are definately a couple of small cliques on these boards. What would happen if someone had a disagreement with one member of a clique, and then all the clique members decided to hit the disaprove button for the posts the other member made, even if the posts were useful?

Yeah this, is the main problem I see with it. There'll be ways of restricting or reducing such behaviour, but you're talking complex business logic per user.

Rex_Mundi wrote:

There are also sometimes when a problem can be solved in two or three different ways successfully. If you post one good answer, does that mean the other two (equally valid) answers should get a vote against them?

Digg all of them if you want. If it's a good post, you can digg it, just ignore it or, disapprove.

Rex_Mundi wrote:

I can see this idea causing more work for the abuse team, and causing more animosity/bad blood on the boards, rather than serving a useful purpose on the site.

Yeah I see your point. I'll have a think, see if I can refine the idea, or come up with something less open to abuse.

hb1444

It is a good idea, but then people would be using the "No thanks" button as a form of battle, one person may click it on a forum, and the person who had it clicked to them would click it back