That feature may be requiring some in depth programming, for which the root may not be getting enough time, perhaps.
I know It has been requested many times by now. I mentioned it for n+1 th time just for the sake.

I disabled the "reputation" exactly for this reason. Both things get mixed. And I still am a Noob, 3000 plus posts or not, who doesn't want that taken as expertise.

The answer is simple: You cannot.

If we do re-enable the "No" option I will add being able to remove your No vote as a definitive item on the TODO.

--jeremy

2 members found this post helpful.

I'll say a few more things.

I am not for the reputation system because I want my ego to be pumped, I am for it because it can give a person who made a good post some kind of a moral award. That system is good for both the person who helped and the person who did get help. What is important here is the appreciation and if a member did get that appreciation from the other member, I am for that to be shown publicly, as it is now with green points, not because of popularity, but because that person did help someone and others could benefit from that post/s eventually.

Current system is bad, so this is a good thread, so far. It is bad because it does not give the possibility to a member to vote up or down certain post and also to explain why he/she did it. There is no doubt that No should be there, but just as Yes it needs an explanation box, publicly readable, so that all could say why certain post was voted down or up. That is because we all could learn from those explanations too and they would not distract from the original thread because they would be linked, as I suggested before. Basically, technical stuff would be in the thread and all the thank you's etc. would be in the explanation boxes, that is not that you cannot say thank you in the thread or alike, but if you want to explain why are you thankful or not, there will be a little box ready for you to do that. And, again, as I said and if you ask me, vote should not be possible without an explanation. If need be, mods can easily check why certain post was downvoted and act accordingly. As an example and I know there are lots of members here with the similar experiences, I tried to help a member, I posted something like 10 replies in the thread he started and after he didn't fix his problem by then, he downvoted all my posts in that thread. Now, my only guilt was trying to help but if he had to explain why he did it, I'm sure there wouldn't be a single downvote.

There were some great posts in this thread, don't let them be in vain.

If you want to explain, in detail, why you are up repping something you can use the existing reputation system to do so (and always could).

--jeremy

And how can I do that?

By clicking the scales in the post you'd like to rep, and then filling out the optional "Your comments on this post" text box.

--jeremy

Yeah, I know what you mean, but that's not it. Nobody else could see that, I hope you understand.

The person you are providing feedback to will see it.

--jeremy

Yeah, except that person, that's what I meant.

RE the idea of attaching an explanation to a vote:

What if we did something like Wiki, where every thread has a Discussion thread behind it. That way the discussion part (social interaction) won't interfere solving OP's problem (technical interaction).

Still not a great solution, I know, but just a thought.

1 members found this post helpful.

what could possibly go wrong with making a dysfunctional complicated system even more complicated
what is the goal of the reputation system?
positive re-enforcement for the posters
to identify the best answers
to highlight the members that are the most likely to provide good advice
here's another system on a similar forum\
http://linux.ittoolbox.com/groups/te...36868#M4558764

2 members found this post helpful.

I cannot agree that the current system is bad. Not perfect maybe, but not bad.

The current system is subject to misuse and, occasionally, abuse. Anything that persons create is subject to abuse by those who have how shall I put it? less-than-good will.

My experience has been that the great majority of LQ users are persons of good will who are a pleasure to deal with, even when they (as have some of the persons who have posted to this thread) have called me out for my own errors.

I have done a lot of work with human performance systems. A well-designed system makes it easier for someone who wants to do well to do well. It can make it difficult for those who choose to do ill, but it cannot provide absolute protection against them.

I suggest that the goal here must not be for a perfect system, because there ain't no such thing. The goal should be for "good enough."

I also would compliment all the persons in this thread, whether or not we have agreed with each other, who have put serious thought and effort into improving what is ultimately a community that exists only to help its members. (And to Jeremy for creating the opportunity for it to happen.)

4 members found this post helpful.

Fabulous! No "No" button, and I have been eluding this.

Regarding answer-posts:

I believe, questions constructed to be vague can mislead people who are eager to help. Then, I find such answers to be very informative enough as if trying to solve a "mystery behind a puzzle". Now these answer-posts are the constructive products of such vague questions. I hope we can label these posts and have them searchable. An LQ feature
maybe - "Labeled posts".

Maybe we can have a single button for posts like "way off mark but very valuable info" (not pertaining to Nominal Animal's posts).

I hope every manner of answering vague (or even quite vague) questions are very similar to NA's posts.