A No Thanks, of sorts
 

There has been some recent discussion around a closed thread that was in General and likely should have been in Off Topic.

Most of the complaints that seemed to matter were related to karma/thanks etc. (I seek not to put words into peoples' mouths, so correct me if you see otherwise).

After some thought, I decided to put up this thread in General because it discusses a proposed change to how the system works, and is open for discussion.

There has been a large influx of new contributors to the site. I actually see this is a good thing, and it's also to be expected given the wider appeal of the N900 over the iTs. But, such brings its own problems, and not least, a potential clash of civilizations between those who develop and understand in one way and those who use and understand in another. This, also, is a good thing.

Tensions will inevitably occur. As will flames, insults and offenses (real or perceived).

In another post (http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php...651#post352651), I followed up on a thought about 'no thanks' and I think it's a good idea:

A 'No Thanks' or a 'Flag' button, when clicked by a member, does the following:

- removes all thanks given to this post
- flags the post as 'objectionable' in some way (the member can justify)
- is open to appeal by the poster (via a link only they can see?)
- is open to arbitration by a moderator.

I don't actually think this is that different from the 'Report' link in many ways, just more open, perhaps (maybe making the 'No Thanks' posters evident would be opening up flame/karma wars. but maybe it's a good thing too?)

So, to discuss, if you like: should we have a No Thanks/FLag link on all posts just like there's a 'Thanks' link? More to the point, perhaps, can it be done?

As an example start, perhaps the 'Report This' link can be changed to 'No THanks' and put whrre the other links are at the bottom of the post?

Thanks for listening...

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

I would click No Thanks on this thread then. People will be clicking No Thanks like crazy like when they just simply disagree with what is said... and then the poster will appeal and Reggie will have to deal with every single last one of these.

It's not that it's a bad idea, it's just that it doesn't work in implementation.

And there's also the fact that it's negative re-enforcement which will lead to more butthurt and people leaving and so on...

We're just better off without it, honestly.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

It really depends on what the powers-that-be intend for T.M.O to become. If it's to be a general Maemo/Nxx0 user site, i think more "checks and balances" need to be implemented for the forum to prevent unproductive chaos and low s/n.

Rather than a one-strike idea as you suggest, i would prefer something that would be both incremental and cumulative:
-No Thanks would subtract one from the Thanks count
-A filter that could hide individual posts below some threshold
-A filter that could hide all posts by a person below some threshold

This is not only great for allowing community-balanced moderation, it lets people choose the volume of talk they want to see.

I just realized that i've largely described slashdot. Horrors. Don't let that distract you from the good points, though. ;)

Edit: i have to say that for the first time in my life i have added entries to my block list. I come here mostly for informative discussion so i guess my tolerance of useless and acerbic chatter is lower than usual. If i feel that way, i'm sure there are many others who would like to see this problem nipped in the bud.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

No. The current thanks button is a nice way to quickly thank someone, and it works. Turning it into a negative thing will result in more ill will, more karma whoring, and will do nothing to discourage trolls.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

There are no good points. Slashdot is the sole exception, because they have the scale and the right thread model. Few other sites do.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I tend to think more highly of people than that, but perhaps I'm just a silly old optimist.

You seem to misunderstand the 'No Thanks' - why would one 'No Thanks' a thread/post they disagreed with? Makes no sense to me. Now, posts that were in some way 'challenging', perhaps? IN other words, why would you say 'No Thanks' to this thread, just out of interest? Cos it's a stupid idea? Perhaps. I hope it didn't offend your sensibilities :)

Trust (sic) me when I say: reputation systems can work in two directions in order to manage what is said, and the community is that which can manage these things. Thanks is a one way street. Just like email at the start of the internet, it works because people are nice. Not everyone is, and communities can police themselves. The Slashdot model isn't terribly bad, btw, and takes a lot of the load from e.g. Reggie: there's more than one moderator around, don't forget.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

This doesn't make sense... If we can trust people to not misuse a negative karma system, what would we need it for in the first place?

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

I think a negative vote isn't a good concept to implement in a community because it can easily foster ill will and many tit-for-tat fights.

I'd suggest reducing the karmic value of basic 'thanks' to 1/5th of its current value, and adding a 'Useful' button\flag that has the value of current Thanks.

This way we can still pass on our 'thanks' for those friendly and entertaining posts but have the option of giving a more weighty 'Useful' post that we deem more worthy.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

It worked. It didn't work so well in the aforementioned thread.

I can see your point about ill will etc. This is of course why anonymity, for the thumbs up (thanks) and thumbs down (no thanks) is probably more than worthwhile. Especially from the 'whoring' pov.

[Related: I must say, I find it a little odd to see who thanked me, or allow people to see who I thanked in such a public manner. Now *that* can only encourage the 'whoring' you mention, surely?...]

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

No, anonymity (or perceived anonymity) will also remove the sense of accountability. Just check the ridiculous tags on 'that thread' for example.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Very good... Tautologies...

We can't of course. In either case.

The question then becomes: do you want a free for all or a potentially community-moderated forum. The thing about 'community-moderated' with reputation is that we have to hope that the community is grown up enough to *be* moderate. Oddly enough, it generally is, and if it forgets, well, then there are 'moderators'...

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Attachment 4442

Had to do it. ;)

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

I've seen it happen almost every time/everywhere it was implemented.

Like zerojay said, sounds great in theory, works poorly in practice for the most part.

And I don't think this place wants to become another slash dot. The current forum "personality" is fine IMO.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

I think the OP's point is that the personality is going to be changing one way or another due to changing demographic and population density, and to manage that change there's a need for more tools.

I don't think a head-in-the-sand approach is the best one, but i can see the other side of this for sure.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

That's what the report button is for. I'm personally in favor of more agressive thread locking guidelines (how many threads in the last week or so have devolved into pages and pages of useless bickering between a handful of members?), but No Thanks! is just going to

C'mon, can we try to avoid going down that path here? :)

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Yes, and with the growth of population in the world at large, maybe we should implement a Spanish forum, or a Chinese one, and one for refugees, or one that gives tips on how to use your NIT in case of natural disasters.

The problem with this behaviour, is that by implementing a bunch of "what-if" scenarios, you end up going right past the important stuff. I'd rather not insult the possible newcomers and at least try to keep things working as they are now. Worst case scenario, we see a bit of a flame here and there, and if things get out of hand, we can start thinking about solutions.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

I'd go so far as to suggest removing thanks from the karma count altogether. After seeing the comment that threads were closed due to complaints about thanks/karma, I was struck by how often I've seen that abused in other threads.

There are plenty of threads I've read / participated in where 3-4 people thanked each other in nearly every post in the thread just for sharing the same viewpoint, not for actual useful posts. Seems like karma whoring (pimping?) to me.

If we are going to start closing/moving threads for karma whoring, it should be done with an even hand, whether light or heavy.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

The thing is, otherwise good threads go down in flames this way. I'm in favor of a broader context for reporting a post. I'm also fine with letting the mods handle it once it's reported. If the mods are fine with it, that's cool. It's tried and proven. I'm only posting here because i like to find optimal solutions and i don't think that's it.

What path? There's a wait-and-see/there's-not-a-problem camp and a things-are-changing/let's-move-to-intercept camp. It is appearing that the senior majority is in the former, so i will leave it alone.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

To be fair, that was the single most idiotic thread ever.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Moi aussi. C'était seulement une pensée...

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

So disagreement with the "no thanks" suggestion equates to a head in the sand???

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

This really doesn't make a lot of sense to me in the model proposed. And nor does it give me good feelings about how it would work in practice. My current job involves working with a large site with an idea of 'karma', and in practice, adding negative karma never really worked out well for us. We're in the process of trying to remove it, actually.

Thanking people is a positive action. You don't want to add negativity onto that, because instead of helping control idiocy, it'll lead to cliques forming.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Sorry, i took your comment "The current forum "personality" is fine IMO." out of context. You were referring to not turning into slashdot, rather than saying it was not changing at all.

Sorry for the pointless post, too, i just realized my mistake there.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

This is healthy.

It's exactly for these view exchanges I posed the Q in the first place. My own views are *obviously* idiosyncratic and draconian and totally out of step. It's why I joined the community, in fact... I can/could see the problems with 'no thanks' but wanted some other viewpoints on it.

So, thanks for the conflicting views :) These are, in fact, what makes such a site work.

Robust discussion, it's something like a morning swim in a frozen lake...

For the record, I don't know how it would work, I think that as initially suggested it wouldn't, in fact, but please, if you like, keep the ideas coming because I also think the community will evolve and thinking about how to manage that is a good thing.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Thanks Flandry.

Look, I'm the last one to want to shoot down an idea. But there's history here-- this one has come up numerous times, and every argument pro and con hashed over ad nauseum.

I happen to think fair balance is struck between Thanks and Report Post. There is abuse of Thanks of course but the merits outweigh it by far-- I'll bet the abuse is no more than 10% of all Thanking activity. But human nature holds that the converse will not likely be true; as much as any of us may like to think that people will be grownups, I guarantee you that "No Thanking" will exhibit significantly more abuse than Thanking-- to the point of being detrimental (imagine the wars back and forth... and do you want equal visibility of No Thankers as we do with Thankers? It's only fair, and what would such a thing do to the fabric of this place?)

Adding "no thanks" seems like a simple thing, but it would truly change the character of t.m.o. In addressing the influx of new members with phone-oriented needs, we certainly need to examine various means of moderation but so far the current system is working. I'm all for being proactive, but not to the point of paranoia. ;)

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Oh, I forgot to add, I'm paranoid.

(not really. I hadn't realized I came out that way)

I searched, and probably not hard enough, but couldn't find previous discussion. Mea culpa. Sorry for wasting your time.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

There's already a "No Thanks", it's achieved by not thanking a post.

What some people seem to want is a way to erase other people's thanks because they disagree with them. It's upto other users to decide what posts they want to thank and I see no reason to "unthank" something.

If you want to thank it then do so. If it's not for you then move along.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Hmmm... this is a difficult one. I've been on plenty of forums that implemented karma/thanks/popularity votes, and they were harmless. The difference was that they were just that - popularity votes. In the grand scheme of things, whether I am popular or not on an internet forum doesn't really amount to much.

Here, it's different. 'Thanks' (and 'karma votes') actually mean something, in terms of whether one gets discounts, use of developer devices or an invite to summit. Which is a little challenging for the average new-user to get their head around.

I'm not sure I like the idea of a 'negative thanks' ('smiting' I believe it's called on other boards) for exactly the same reason. It's going to be seen as grudging and mean spirited. On the other hand, I accept that people awarding Thanks (and hence karma) for fluffy, meaningless posts must irritate the hell out of people slowly building karma by making good, meaningful contributions to the community.

I think my suggested solution might be to leave the 'thanks' system in place, but take it out of the Karma calculation altogether. Then implement something else on the board which is a 'Karma point', but which takes more effort, maybe even a 'give reason' (such as you have to do for reporting a post - I'm running out of ways to say 'spam' creatively!)

That way I can still 'quick click' the Thanks button for someone I agree with or who has made me laugh, without it being a huge thing for their place in the community. And I can award a 'karma point' for someone who's responded to a request for information, help or a software request provided I can explain why.

It's a more complicated system but might solve some of the ill-feeling.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

I happen to think that simply lopping off a percentage of Thanks to handle expected "noise" resolves the frivolous Thanking-- but I am intrigued by the idea of having users enter a rationale.

Maybe the answer is two-fold: allow Thanks with no comment, and it has no Karma value. Any Thanks with an accompanying comment (which could be hidden or contained in a dropdown list) adds to Karma.

EDIT: not trying to steal RevdKathy's thunder-- looks like we were essentially talking about the same thing in different ways, so please give her credit. ;)

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Relax, it's all good. Even if previous threads exist, sometimes a new thread being posted with different words bring about new ideas. So, no waste of time here, man.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Isn't that what I just said? :confused:

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Previous conversations are probably buried in static. ;)

And I wasn't implying you were paranoid... I'm suggesting that jumping too far, too fast right now might be.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

It wasn't how I interpreted it, sorry. You said take it out altogether but add another karma-oriented method-- I was saying simply add a qualifier to the existing system to generate karma. I see them as different but related suggestions amounting to the same end.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Might as well throw out the Thanks system completely if you're going to force people to type before it will count. No one will do it. Or they will fill the field with garbage.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

You're way past the user laziness threshold here. Most people don't care enough about other people's karma to both to leave a comment.

Really, the current Thanks! system works pretty well. It generally rewards useful contributors (which contributors do you think don't belong on this page?), it's easy enough that it doesn't pass many laziness thresholds and it generally helps to encourage positive posting habits.

Let's not mess with what works.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

I'd say that's the point: people can say 'thanks' for a post and it won't count. But if you want to count, you have to put a little effort in. It would distinguish between 'thanks for making me laugh on a dull day' and 'thanks for really helping me solve a major problem with my device'. Only one should be karma-worthy. ;)

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Another possibility (which would perhaps help out..) is to allow thanks to be assigned based on existing karma - or something - on a rationed basis. So you can thank people, but you can only thank them so far before you need to get your own cred to start thanking people.

It could work on a daily/weekly/something basis, I dunno. Just tossing ideas around.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

On second thoughts, after reading this, I do wonder what, exactly, we're finding solutions for here.

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

i wasn't happy about the last restructuring of the site at the time, but i think it's working really well the way it is now. if anyone is willing to put in that much time and effort for a $300 discount once every few years, they must really need it and are welcome to it as far as i'm concerned. i think most people want to help others because it's a basic human instinct to want to feel productive and make your community stronger

Re: A No Thanks, of sorts
 

Nothing. There is of course, no problem to be solved. We can all go home now.

Texrat - you're right, jumping in with 2 feet would be an issue, but I'd like to think that:

RevdKathy - I'm actually quite liking the 'Thanks' and 'Thanks with kudos' approach. Thanks to you ;)