Removal of the 'Thanks' button on discussion boards?

OffGridLiving

Quasar wrote: »

You are not being attacked. Your are being disagreed with. See the difference?

Not really, to disagree people would have to disagree with the point I was making (as you did in your initial post), not have a go personally at me.

The difference betwen a debate and an argument is that in a debate, the subject matter is discussed. In an attack, the person is discussed.

Here's an example of an attack:

"You have obviously put some effort into researching your subject, a bit obsessive in my opinion, who really cares about post/thanks counts anyway?"


Here is an example of a disagreement:

"I believe the Thanks button was introduced to avoid people making one word posts to say thanks, and by the same token it also avoids unnecessary posts just saying "I agree". One of the annoying things about web forums (fora?) is when you see that there are new posts, go to the "trouble" of opening the thread and scrolling down it, only to find someone has said "thanks" or "I agree". "


There is a difference.

MoneyMate

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Not really, to disagree people would have to disagree with the point I was making (as you did in your initial post), not have a go personally at me.

The difference betwen a debate and an argument is that in a debate, the subject matter is discussed. In an attack, the person is discussed.

Here's an example of an attack:

"You have obviously put some effort into researching your subject, a bit obsessive in my opinion, who really cares about post/thanks counts anyway?"


Here is an example of a disagreement:

"I believe the Thanks button was introduced to avoid people making one word posts to say thanks, and by the same token it also avoids unnecessary posts just saying "I agree". One of the annoying things about web forums (fora?) is when you see that there are new posts, go to the "trouble" of opening the thread and scrolling down it, only to find someone has said "thanks" or "I agree". "


There is a difference.

We seem to have now come away in some threads as they can't be described as Money Saving many are just like a online chit chat.
Some perhaps are a little bit of gentle humour ( Yes I do sometimes fall into this category ) but if it makes fellow MSE members smile I cannot apologies for this . :beer:

Anselm

Quasar wrote: »

You are not being attacked. Your are being disagreed with. See the difference?

Calling someone "obsessive" may not be the worst insult, but it's certainly attacking the person as opposed to the crux of the argument.

But let us disagree. (This is not a personal attack)

Caitlin_Bree

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Hi, sorry could you please create another thread about your issue? This one is about the Thanks facility and it'd be great if it didn't go off on a tangent. Also, your issue would be better served on its own thread as it'd get a wider audience of people interested in the same discussion.

Cheers and good luck.

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Another question... What is the point of a feedback board if the forum administrators don't comment/provide feedback or even give an acknowledgement that they saw the thread?

Seems a bit of a waste of time even posting in here, akin to shouting down a well?

Do as I say.. not as I do?

Also, I think you might be seeing the thanks button as a "you're right" button. It isn't. As coolcait said, many people just want to thank people for bothering to respond at all.

I don't think you were being attacked or called obsessive, I read it as "your research and reading into the thanks button are a bit obsessive".

I never thought of the thanks button as being anything more than people thanking others for their input.. whether they considered the information right or wrong.

OffGridLiving

Caitlin_Bree wrote: »

Do as I say.. not as I do?

Also, I think you might be seeing the thanks button as a "you're right" button. It isn't. As coolcait said, many people just want to thank people for bothering to respond at all.

I don't think you were being attacked or called obsessive, I read it as "your research and reading into the thanks button are a bit obsessive".

I never thought of the thanks button as being anything more than people thanking others for their input.. whether they considered the information right or wrong.

With your first point, the thread has sat idle for a while and so I was wondering why MSE have a feedback section and then not acknowledge any posts in it. So, completely on-topic. Besides, I was trying to help the guy, not tell him off. As I said, his point would probably get a better response in its own thread though perhaps you disagree?

With the second point, I agree with your comments and similar comments made by other people, so that's why I started to focus on why there is a "thanks count"? If 'thanks' doesn't indicate correctness or helpfulness on the part of the "thankee" (for want of a better term) then why have it at all?

After this discussion, I can see a role for the 'thanks button', but cannot see what purpose the "thanks count" serves?

Caitlin_Bree

It didn't sound like you were trying to help him .. and I don't think it was taken as such.
I'm going to leave you to it.. Have fun

OffGridLiving

Caitlin_Bree wrote: »

It didn't sound like you were trying to help him .. and I don't think it was taken as such.
I'm going to leave you to it.. Have fun

Well it's a text based forum and so there are no 'sounds', no inflections and little indication of the tone of a post. What often happens is that the readers own emotions are projected when they read plain text.

i.e. if the reader is generally a grumpy and argumentative person, then they will read plain text as having a grumpy and argumentative tone. A happy person may read the same text in a totally different way. One way to try and show the tone of a post is to use emoticons, so if you are trying to be helpful and well meaning, you might put a ":)" into the post.

This is what I did. I can't control how other people reflect their own emotions onto my plain text. All I can say is that I was trying to be helpful and you can't escape the fact (and I see you avoided it when I asked the question) that I was correct in what I said - people get a better response to a question if they start their own thread rather than posting into an existing one on a different subject.

If you think that statement is wrong, then I'm happy to discuss that. If you want an argument about anything else, sorry but I'm really not interested. Life's really too short to spend it arguing with people on the internet. :eek:

meher

Quasar wrote: »

Who says that the Arms, DT and House Debate do not contain posts that are helpful to others?

Just spend some time on these boards and you will see that many opinions sought and given ARE of much help. Just because we chat and banter doesn't mean we have nothing useful to say and money saving can be indirectly achieved by various forms of help, not necessarily requested in terms of direct, hard cash saving.

absolutely, some of them say such clever things that i've outed Epicurus, Ptolemy, the great GBS etc and instead quote some of the DTrs :D