Jeremy,

Now that the "unhelpful" button is removed, is the following going to be removed from the My Profile -> Statistics page as well:I cannot come up with a valid reason for keeping this now that there is no way of giving someone unhelpful status.

Just curious :)

If we at some point make a decision to remove the "No" option on a permanent basis, the related profile statistics would be removed.

--jeremy

Ok, thanks!

My feeling is that unrelated functions need to be disconnected from each other. The lack of parity between the two makes it obvious that yes and no are unrelated functions.

• When I click yes the person gets some reputation added.
• When I click no the person's reputation is unaffected.

If the intended purpose of yes is to highlight the best answer in the thread, then why should it affect the poster's reputation at all? It seems like you want it to be similar to sites where posts can be voted to the top, but then you don't actually move the posts to the top. Why?

The intended purpose of no seems to be to warn about misleading/malicious/unproductive posts, thus making LQ members into mini-moderators of sorts. That might not seem like a bad idea, but please make clear the meaning and effect of that no.

I'm afraid I have naively misused the system already. Sorry for that, and hope it hasn't caused trouble in any way. I don't really need the no.

I do want to continue using yes to show my approval of helpful/informative/productive posts. It should probably be disconnected from the reputation system though. And please consider giving some visual representation of the effect of accumulated yes votes.

Maybe the post which gets the most yes votes should be reprinted at the top of the thread directly below OP. I'm sure some will not like that idea, though.

How about this:

Keep the current positive-only reputation intact, but add -- for the lack of a better term -- notority points. Each notority point would also include a reason, selected from a predefined list. These could include things like "off topic", "homework", "high risk advice".

Unlike reputation points, notority points would not be anonymous. If you flag a post, your username would be shown (for example, in the tool tip) too.

At the bottom of each message, both reputation and notority would be similarly shown. For example a message might show
(There is no way to add a tooltip in a post, so I used a link instead. Instead of a link, the flags would have tooltips (HTML title attribute) listing the (first few usernames) that flagged the post that way.)

While there is a risk of some arguments arising from mislabeling posts, such disagreements could at least be discussed. Anonymous "drive-by cheap shots" would be impossible. (Giving notority points could be restricted, or tied to the reputation points, to keep its use very low. That too is important: most posts are just part of the discussion.)

Previously, there was no way (other than contacting the moderators, or asking in a new post in the thread) to find out. I believe my suggested change would facilitate better discussion, and be helpful for those (like myself) that wish to avoid certain types of posts (and threads). It may be technically difficult to implement, though.

As for myself, instead of flagging posts, I've resorted to ignoring the members I perceive as posting "unhelpful" or "homework" posts. While this works for me, there is at least one member I've ignored, but has many helpful posts I would not want to ignore. (That is, I'd prefer to ignore certain of er posts, not the poster.)

That is only because the negative aspects of the reputation system have been completely removed.

See below for the rest of the answer, but a member who very consistently posts helpful responses should be rewarded with positive reputation it would seem.

Such as the profile stats?

We have done this for a very long time now.

--jeremy

Fine, if that's the consensus then I won't fight it. I just want to point out that the two systems are unrelated, and for me they conflict with each other. Most times I click yes without even considering reputation. But then, when I try to give reputation I am not allowed.

I guess if I'm the only one too dumb to understand the relationship between the two, then just leave that part as it is.

I mean inside the thread itself.

I see the a link at the top of the reply stack. What I meant was to reprint the entire post at the top of the thread directly under the opening post. Again, probably not a popular suggestion I know.

Oh well. I like LQ and I get plenty of enjoyment from the time I spend here. Thanks for listening to my gripes.

Muchas gracias. Please consider keeping it that way indefinitely.

Unlike on some other sites, threads on LQ are more a discussion than every one trying to come up with the whole solution in one post. Pulling the best rated post to the top would take it out of its context. I see the link at the top rather to be good for a first look on the best rated solution, so that anyone that comes from a web search can see if this solution was may be already tried or is something new. I would think that it is nonetheless still recommended to read more of the posts in a thread, not only the top rated one, simply because most of the time there are earlier posts that are only partially quoted (which may make things unclear if you haven't read them) and some follow up posts that clarify some things or warn about circumstances when that specific approach will not work.

While helping other Linux users is the main purpose of LQ, I see LQ also as highly educative (at least I have learned much since I am a member here), not only a "solution distributor". Pulling the best rated post to the top will counteract that also, I would think.

I know, it isn't a great idea. I was just struggling to think some way to make the system look more like what it is intended to be. Forgive me :redface:

Me, too!

I'll add my 2 cents, based on what I have read here and from what I remember when the original thread about reputation system started, I'll say that, in my opinion, all this mess can be fixed this way;

The question should be Did you find this post helpful and why?

Options should be Yes and No and when a member clicks on either one of them his/her name should be automagically added to the list of users who voted and the lovely part;

I think a new little box should appear, something like Quick Reply box where a member would type why he or she found that post helpful or not. In my opinion "Why" should be explained and should be obligatory. Without "Why" explained, no vote should be added. There should be a link to that members list who voted and expressed their opinion within the comment box. Something like;

Voted helpful by 12 members (see who and why) <-- this is a link
Voted unhelpful by 3 members (see who and why) <-- this is a link

That way all would be transparent and would greatly improve the reputation system.

As it is now, if I go to see someone's reputation I can see when and in which thread he or she got that point, but I cannot see from whom it was and why and I can see who gave me a point in My LQ, which is also in contradiction.

Jeremy said that maybe No will be completely removed. I do not agree, because in the original reputation system thread majority of members I believe was for Yes and No. We do not need to remove things, we need to make them better.

I hope this suggestion of mine will see the light.

I was going to suggest something similar to what alan_ri did:

When someone clicks "unhelpful," present them with a dialog that forces a selection from a multiple choice menu. The menu could be designed to emphasize the purpose, as Jeremy explained it, of "unhelpful," because his reasons make a lot of sense (as always). I thought at first of a free-text form for entering a "why," then decided it might offer too much of an opportunity for bomb-throwing.

Of course an honest mistake (of which I have my share) could be construed as "not adding the conversation in a constructive way," so maybe that could be replaced by some more specific options, such as "off topic," "belaboring a point already made," "introducing unrelated issue," and the like.

Just my two cents.

As an aside, when I see "4 out of 5 found this helpful," I conclude that one clicked not helpful. Is this correct?

Again, I want to emphasize that I find LQ one of the nicest internet places to be that I have seen; almost everyone is friendly and helpful. That's one reason I decided to participate regularly, not just when I had a linux question.

Not in my opinion.
Report button can be used only for taking to task the prank, spam,
and otherwise "dangerous" posts. By "dangerous" I mean something
which can "damage" someone's computer/money.

Now, in C/C++ kind of language threads, people post their own
interpretations of the technical aspects which many times may
be incorrect.

Example: If I post an incorrect/pointless use/definition of
pure virtual functions, mods won't be able to strangle my
throat on this issue since I didn't break any "rules". I posted that
with good intentions of helping. Of course the discussions will
follow and I'll get corrected down somewhere in the thread.
BUT,
What about the newbie who just sees the senior member title
with 4000 posts and lots of green dots??
He may not understand the follow up posts, and his vision may get
jeopardized due to the title credentials ! This can lead to confusion
and a wastage of time for him.

In these kind of cases, IMO, it is "necessary" to mark the post
down (as a warning signal to the clueless folks).

This is already there. In basic terms clicking "yes" increments the "helpful post" counter on the post itself and adds to the reputation of the poster with the generic comment "Helpful Answer Positive Rating". If instead you click the "scales" icon you can add your own comment in place of that one and give positive reputation but the counter on the post in question does not get incremented. So it only works in one direction.

Personally I think the comment is important but there more so needs to be some accountability. The anonymity of the current system is it's main flaw in my opinion. Some people will just flag up the post of someone they dislike as unhelpful, because they can and they know it will piss that person off. The internet and forums in particular are full of such people, it would be naive to assume otherwise.

I would say that at the least there needs to be a record of who clicked what, even if it's only visible to moderators and/or the two members involved. But in my opinion the best solution is to leave it exactly as it is at present; anonymous, but with the "No" option disabled and rely on in-thread corrections and post reporting to deal with problems.

I see your point, but a forum is a forum, it's not an infallible guide or instruction manual. If someone doesn't read a thread properly or follows flawed or out of date information, that's simply one of the known hazards. I don't think there is a realistic way to consistently separate the accurate posts from the inaccurate ones, the "No" option in it's current forum certainly won't achieve that, and members simply need to be on their toes rather than blindly copying and pasting every bit of code they find on a forum.

It's also worth pointing out the following from the Rules:If someone blindly inputs a command or runs some code, it is something that they must accept may damage their machine. We cannot, and should not, be seen as trying to protect a user or guest from themselves.

Technical threads should always be read through in their entirety unless the viewer understands the topic already and isaware of what a change may do. And in that case, they take the consequences on themselves.