What the forum is missing... [ability to upvote posts]

[dandan14]

Often a post can have lots of posts/replies but not be valuable. Then there can be a hidden gem with only a few replies, but tons of value.
What the forum needs really badly is the ability to up-vote. You see this on sites like Reddit.com and on forums like fatwallet.com. With that feature, it becomes much easier to locate the most valuable content.

Surely there is a phpbb mod for this.

Thoughts?

Dan

[Sidney]

I seem to recall that this has come up before. I believe the forum admins have said that they don't support this idea.

[dandan14]

I'd be curious to hear their rationale. Seems like a very useful thing.

[livesoft]

Hidden gems end up in the Wiki anyways, don't they?

[NoVa Lurker]

Another option would be to allow users to select "favorite" threads. Then we could check the favorites of certain people, or possibly search by which threads received the most favorites.

However, I appreciate the simplicity and speed of the current bogleheads.org interface, and I defer to the admins/moderators if they have determined that changes like these would hamper that simplicity/speed.

[dandan14]

Hidden gems end up in the Wiki anyways, don't they?

Yes...but someone has to pick those. With voting, you crowdsource that and automatically find/sort the most valuable and interesting threads.

[Fallible]

Often a post can have lots of posts/replies but not be valuable. Then there can be a hidden gem with only a few replies, but tons of value.
What the forum needs really badly is the ability to up-vote. You see this on sites like Reddit.com and on forums like fatwallet.com. With that feature, it becomes much easier to locate the most valuable content.

Surely there is a phpbb mod for this.

Thoughts?

Dan

Here's a link to a previous thread, including a link from LadyGeek, that I think addresses the situation: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=107329&p=1559500. For many of the reasons mentioned,
I agree the forum does not need this kind of voting.

[livesoft]

Hidden gems end up in the Wiki anyways, don't they?

Yes...but someone has to pick those. With voting, you crowdsource that and automatically find/sort the most valuable and interesting threads.

If a hidden gem gets a lot of responses with the words "This should go in the Wiki!", then does that not solve the problem? Plus one can see who is doing the voting that way, too. Or one could responde "Wiki Worthy!"

[sscritic]

With voting, you crowdsource that and automatically find/sort the most valuable and interesting threads.

Not only are some threads more valuable than others, some opinions are more valuable than others. First we need to crowdsource who gets the most votes during the crowdsourcing of valuable threads before we can crowdsource which threads are the best. But before that, we have to crowdsource the voting weights of the voters voting for those with the most valuable opinions on threadworthiness.

[Peter Foley]

I too recall a thread not long ago about voting on threads. I thought there were good reasons not too. If the real concern is that some "gem" is missed, there is always the opportunity to e-mail someone on the advisory board and ask if the information can be added to the Wiki. I have forwarded a few suggestions in the past and have found the advisory board to be very thoughtful and receptive.

[gkaplan]

What's a crowdsource?

[MathWizard]

This forum is much better due to the lack of such mechanisms.

I have way too much respect for the people on this board to support a like or upvote/downvote button.

There is a free exchange of ideas, and good ideas abound.

I've been in lots of forums over the years back to the network news days, and this forum ranks up there with
the most civil and informative forums I have ever particpated in. The only ones that even came close were where
every post was pre-screened by moderators. That was a daunting task that burnt out mods quickly, at which time the forum
went downhill.

If you have a favorite contributor, click on the screen-name and you can see all their posts
and you could then look through the discussions they have been involved in.

[baw703916]

What's a crowdsource?

It's more or less the same mechanism which determines what percentage of TSM will be invested in which company.

Of course for it to work efficiently we will need some arbitrageurs who can short on thread and go long another.

[greg24]

I upvote your upvote

[Fallible]

With voting, you crowdsource that and automatically find/sort the most valuable and interesting threads.

Not only are some threads more valuable than others, some opinions are more valuable than others. First we need to crowdsource who gets the most votes during the crowdsourcing of valuable threads before we can crowdsource which threads are the best. But before that, we have to crowdsource the voting weights of the voters voting for those with the most valuable opinions on threadworthiness.

In other words, who decides who votes?

[rustymutt]

Hidden gems end up in the Wiki anyways, don't they?

Yes...but someone has to pick those. With voting, you crowdsource that and automatically find/sort the most valuable and interesting threads.

Actually, just the opposite occurrs also, if the wrong person is picking favorites. Bad ideal on a open forum like this.

[poundwise]

This subject has indeed come up before, but I think there have been some unverified assumptions about the relationship between upvotes and forum civility.

We have all seen uncivilized forums like fatwallet, slickdeals and others, which make use of rating mechanisms. But I can't imagine that it is the rating mechanisms that are *causing* the incivility. Instead, it is the lack of dedicated moderation, the lack of principled guidelines about what constitutes civil behavior, and the younger-skewing population that is naturally attracted to those forums.

Bogleheads, by contrast, has fantastic moderators, strict principles, and subject matter that attracts a potentially more respectful user base. Many of the stackexchange forums share these bogleheads qualities, yet employ excellent and phenomenally useful ratings mechanisms -- evidence that civilized discussion and upvotes can co-exist.

[Tyr0ne]

Bogleheads, by contrast, has fantastic moderators, strict principles, and subject matter that attracts a potentially more respectful user base. Many of the stackexchange forums share these bogleheads qualities, yet employ excellent and phenomenally useful ratings mechanisms -- evidence that civilized discussion and upvotes can co-exist.

+1. As long as this holds true, the mechanisms this forum utilizes should not dictate the civility or quality of content. And while I do also think this forum is perfectly fine the way it is, its frustrating to know that I miss a lot of good quality content because I have no way of knowing which thread or which page of which thread has such "hidden gems," and time never permits reading each and every post. IMO, there are way too many "hidden gems" throughout a given day or week to rely solely on the wiki.

Either way, the moderators have my deepest respect and gratitude for this forum, and I will support whatever they see fit.

[LadyGeek]

Here's a link to a previous thread, including a link from LadyGeek, that I think addresses the situation: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=107329&p=1559500. For many of the reasons mentioned,
I agree the forum does not need this kind of voting.

The link in human readable form: Why not add a "like" button to Boglehead posts? . For an example of how to game the system, see: I Wish There Was. "Like" Button

...Bogleheads, by contrast, has fantastic moderators, strict principles, and subject matter that attracts a potentially more respectful user base. Many of the stackexchange forums share these bogleheads qualities, yet employ excellent and phenomenally useful ratings mechanisms -- evidence that civilized discussion and upvotes can co-exist.

Thanks (also thanks to Tyr0ne for the complement). I agree that upvotes can exist, but look at the conditions to post on About - Stack Exchange:

We welcome questions that are clear and specific, representing real problems that you face; Stack Exchange is not the place for conversation, opinions, or socializing.

It's either a question or it's not allowed. There's not much thought to upvoting and moderating questions is a slam dunk.

In this forum, the purpose is for meaningful conversations, opinions, and socializing - the diametric opposite to asking a question. Moderating here requires effort, and voting would add to that burden. So, to keep moderators sane, this is another reason to not incorporate voting.

[Latecomer]

I like it just the way it is. Thanks so much to the moderators for keeping things flowing!

[lucky3]

......is 1. An easy way to refer someone to a previous thread if the same question is asked.

...... 2. Meaningless questions like the one from The Munchkin Man asking about what type of wallet you prefer. Why is this question of importance or of interest to anyone? The board administrator should be a bit more discriminating and omit posts that simply wastes people time.

Lucky3

[CABob]

Or how about a way to "like" and "dislike" conversations or perhaps assign plusses and minuses to a conversation which would cause it to go up or down on the list?

... Oh wait, the old M* had that feature at one time which was one of the reasons for its downfall.

[Rosebud]

I like it just the way it is. Thanks so much to the moderators for keeping things flowing!

I agree.

[Call_Me_Op]

I think the "value" of any thread is subjective, and up to each individual reader to assess for themselves.

[richard]

Meaningless questions like the one from The Munchkin Man asking about what type of wallet you prefer. Why is this question of importance or of interest to anyone? The board administrator should be a bit more discriminating and omit posts that simply wastes people time.

It got 20 responses. It clearly was of interest to MM and those who bothered to respond. It is clearly on-topic for the personal consumer issues forum.

If you think a question is of no importance, ignore it, a task made easier by a clear subject. What did you think a thread captioned "What Type Of Wallet Do You Prefer?" would discuss?

The moderators should not be deciding the value of posts or threads, beyond making sure they follow the rules.

If we're voting, I vote against a like button.

[Grt2bOutdoors]

Often a post can have lots of posts/replies but not be valuable. Then there can be a hidden gem with only a few replies, but tons of value.
Surely there is a phpbb mod for this.

Thoughts?

Dan

Value is in the eye of the beholder, Dan. Consider the forum to be an online classroom where everyone's input adds something to the conversation, the use of upvote/down or lack of voting for that matter would just serve to encourage/discourage the free exchange of ideas/thoughts/experience.

[gw]

With voting, you crowdsource that and automatically find/sort the most valuable and interesting threads.

Not only are some threads more valuable than others, some opinions are more valuable than others. First we need to crowdsource who gets the most votes during the crowdsourcing of valuable threads before we can crowdsource which threads are the best. But before that, we have to crowdsource the voting weights of the voters voting for those with the most valuable opinions on threadworthiness.

In other words, who decides who votes?

These are solved problems.

E.g., www.stackexchange.com

[sscritic]

First we need to crowdsource who gets the most votes during the crowdsourcing of valuable threads before we can crowdsource which threads are the best.

In other words, who decides who votes?

These are solved problems.
E.g., http://www.stackexchange.com

I went there, but I didn't see that the crowdsourcing voting is weighted at stackexchange. It appears that everyone gets the same vote. That is not consistent with the notion that some opinions about a post are more useful than others. Please show me where at stackexchange it says that the better members have a larger voice in the voting on the better posts. If you believe that some posts are better than others it seems logical to also believe that some voters are better than others.

P.S. Don't forget the go two layers down. Not only do you need to vote on articles, you need to vote on which voters get more say, and then back up one more level and vote on which voters for the voters with more say get more say. But don't stop there, go back another level.

[sscritic]

OK. Let's vote. Who thinks that reading this thread and posting in it has been a valuable use of your time? Should anyone else waste their time reading it? How would you rank this thread among the over 100 threads now on the front page?


I vote no and 63. There are worse threads, but not that many. I am only here because I am retired and need to fill up my empty days.

[richard]

First we need to crowdsource who gets the most votes during the crowdsourcing of valuable threads before we can crowdsource which threads are the best.

In other words, who decides who votes?

These are solved problems.
E.g., http://www.stackexchange.com

I went there, but I didn't see that the crowdsourcing voting is weighted at stackexchange. It appears that everyone gets the same vote. That is not consistent with the notion that some opinions about a post are more useful than others. Please show me where at stackexchange it says that the better members have a larger voice in the voting on the better posts. If you believe that some posts are better than others it seems logical to also believe that some voters are better than others.

P.S. Don't forget the go two layers down. Not only do you need to vote on articles, you need to vote on which voters get more say, and then back up one more level and vote on which voters for the voters with more say get more say. But don't stop there, go back another level.

stackexchange.com (or at least the parts I'm familiar with, such as stackoverflow.com) works largely because the questions asked have answers that tend to be objectively right or wrong and because most of those who vote are very knowledgeable. Participants get scores based on how well they answer questions (although how well is the judgment of other participants). If someone says "this computer code will do that" it's easy to test whether they are right or wrong.

The model doesn't really carry over to this forum.

Research shows that those who answer questions with a great deal of confidence tend to be the most believed, but that confidence in predictions doesn't correlate well with accuracy (often quite the opposite).

[BBL]

OK. Let's vote. Who thinks that reading this thread and posting in it has been a valuable use of your time? Should anyone else waste their time reading it? How would you rank this thread among the over 100 threads now on the front page?


I vote no and 63. There are worse threads, but not that many. I am only here because I am retired and need to fill up my empty days.

A valuable use of my time? No. Should anyone else read it? By the time they get this far down they're in sunk-cost territory either way.

Rank? Not as low as 63 but not nearly as good as that DOW thread where magician recently used the word 'stupidly' twice in a post. That's gold, folks.

[Default User BR]

OK. Let's vote. Who thinks that reading this thread and posting in it has been a valuable use of your time? Should anyone else waste their time reading it? How would you rank this thread among the over 100 threads now on the front page?

Any threads dealing with potential changes to the forum are important, and a valuable use of "forum time". I'm not sure that any forum use is particularly valuable anymore outside of an entertainment context. I learned lots of stuff early on that made a difference in how I manage my investments. Now, it's rare that I learn anything new, let alone something applicable to my life. I think the last thing was the thread that mentioned adapters for playing ipods with a cassette stereo.


Brian

[patriciamgr2]

Reading this thread has convinced me that (1) I need to consult the Wiki more frequently & (2) all of us should recommend certain posts for consideration as topics for future Wiki sections

As to learning something from the Forum, I continue to find it extremely valuable. I posted a question about how to analyze whether I was still getting inflation protection from highly-appreciated TIPS issues & got responses that were thoughtful, informed and genuinely helpful. The quality of many posts on this Forum is incredible.

Many, many forum members respond to the posts about consumer issues. So, while not all of those threads interest me, I would be reluctant to see the Forum try to discourage them as long as they meet guidelines.

By the way, thanks to Forum moderators for the great job they do.

[jebmke]

OK. Let's vote. Who thinks that reading this thread and posting in it has been a valuable use of your time? Should anyone else waste their time reading it? How would you rank this thread among the over 100 threads now on the front page?


I vote no and 63. There are worse threads, but not that many. I am only here because I am retired and need to fill up my empty days.

We need an icon next to certain threads.

[Pacific]

OK. Let's vote. Who thinks that reading this thread and posting in it has been a valuable use of your time? Should anyone else waste their time reading it? How would you rank this thread among the over 100 threads now on the front page?


I vote no and 63. There are worse threads, but not that many. I am only here because I am retired and need to fill up my empty days.

Shame on you sscritic! You asked THREE questions and only gave TWO answers. You will now be downvoted/uncrowdsourced. But, I can say I knew you when.

[Levett]

I just want to thank sscritic for introducing the concept of "threadworthiness."

I seem to remember that term from Plato's Republic (or was it Pluto's Republic?).

Lev

[Alex Frakt]

It's not going to happen here. I participate in many forums that allow different forms of voting and there are two issues that can not be overcome. The first is that these things are too easily gamed. It's quite common for certain posters or topics to get automatic up or downvotes, regardless of the quality of a particular post. Worse, it also changes the character of the conversation as posters start pandering for up-votes or avoiding posting after a downvote. For most posters, this happens subconsciously, but it absolutely does happen.

[sscritic]

Reading this thread has convinced me that (1) I need to consult the Wiki more frequently & (2) all of us should recommend certain posts for consideration as topics for future Wiki sections

(3) Use the search box before posting on a topic that has already been covered numerous times.

Now if only the forum software could put the search box so you could find it.

[sscritic]

OK. Let's vote. Who thinks that reading this thread and posting in it has been a valuable use of your time? Should anyone else waste their time reading it? How would you rank this thread among the over 100 threads now on the front page?


I vote no and 63. There are worse threads, but not that many. I am only here because I am retired and need to fill up my empty days.

Shame on you sscritic! You asked THREE questions and only gave TWO answers. You will now be downvoted/uncrowdsourced. But, I can say I knew you when.

But two of them required a yes or a no and one required a number. My no was an extraordinarily valuable no as it answered two questions at once.

[LiamLC]

I wouldn't mind this as long as there is no system to track how many upvotes each user gets. Every forum with such a system gets ruined by it because it becomes an end to which people post rather than a means to improve one's posts.

[interplanetjanet]

I've been in lots of forums over the years back to the network news days, and this forum ranks up there with
the most civil and informative forums I have ever particpated in.

As a fellow participant in Usenet and a survivor of the September that never ended, I can think of no more ironic thing to say than "me too!".

I have been hoping for a forum like this with a comparable maturity level since then. Don't fix what isn't broken.

[Default User BR]

I've been in lots of forums over the years back to the network news days, and this forum ranks up there with the most civil and informative forums I have ever particpated in.

As a fellow participant in Usenet and a survivor of the September that never ended, I can think of no more ironic thing to say than "me too!".

AOL


Brian

[2stepsbehind]

Bogleheads, by contrast, has fantastic moderators

I wouldn't go so far. Zealous, yes, to the point where they shut down legitimate areas of discussion.

[Default User BR]

Bogleheads, by contrast, has fantastic moderators

I wouldn't go so far. Zealous, yes, to the point where they shut down legitimate areas of discussion.

Having once moderated a forum myself, a truism is that you will NEVER get everyone to agree with what should be "legitimate areas of discussion". Someone has to make the call. So as long as the moderators are consistent (and I think they are) I have no beef. I might not like the call in every case, but it's the site owner's prerogative to set the rules and the moderators' to enforce.


Brian

[Fallible]

Bogleheads, by contrast, has fantastic moderators

I wouldn't go so far. Zealous, yes, to the point where they shut down legitimate areas of discussion.

Having once moderated a forum myself, a truism is that you will NEVER get everyone to agree with what should be "legitimate areas of discussion". Someone has to make the call. So as long as the moderators are consistent (and I think they are) I have no beef. I might not like the call in every case, but it's the site owner's prerogative to set the rules and the moderators' to enforce.

Brian

IMO, our moderators not only go by the rules, they often trot them out when locking or taking other action on a thread so we can see (and be reminded of) the rules. Also, I feel that if a solid, reasonable case were made against a rule, the moderators would seriously consider it and possibly change it or let us know why they had decided not to change it. Other forums I've been on lack these features and it inevitably shows in the deteriorating quality of the posts and eventually the forum overall. We are lucky to have this forum.

[ziszew]

I just want to thank sscritic for introducing the concept of "threadworthiness."

I seem to remember that term from Plato's Republic (or was it Pluto's Republic?).

Lev

I thought "threadworthiness" was something I looked for when buying sheets..

[pjstack]

As I recall, "voting" was the was one of the reasons we left the original MorningStar forum.

"Up" or "down" voting can be a huge troll attractor.

I prefer the forum as it is now.

[Austintatious]

Don't fix what isn't broken.

I agree. It ain't perfect but it's pretty darned good. When I first signed on, I thought there was a time or two when the moderators may have jumped the gun. I now know that I was wrong. They do a very good job handling a difficult and absolutely necessary task, without which the quality of this forum would rapidly deteriorate, human nature being the untidy thing that it is. And isn't the phrase "Don't fix what isn't broken" somewhere on the Wiki or in that little red book?

[david99]

It's not going to happen here. I participate in many forums that allow different forms of voting and there are two issues that can not be overcome. The first is that these things are too easily gamed. It's quite common for certain posters or topics to get automatic up or downvotes, regardless of the quality of a particular post. Worse, it also changes the character of the conversation as posters start pandering for up-votes or avoiding posting after a downvote. For most posters, this happens subconsciously, but it absolutely does happen.

I agree with Alex -- voting will influence or prevent the free flow of ideas. What makes this site great is the moderators and the free flow of ideas and opinions.

[gw]

First we need to crowdsource who gets the most votes during the crowdsourcing of valuable threads before we can crowdsource which threads are the best.

In other words, who decides who votes?

These are solved problems.
E.g., http://www.stackexchange.com

I went there, but I didn't see that the crowdsourcing voting is weighted at stackexchange. It appears that everyone gets the same vote. That is not consistent with the notion that some opinions about a post are more useful than others. Please show me where at stackexchange it says that the better members have a larger voice in the voting on the better posts. If you believe that some posts are better than others it seems logical to also believe that some voters are better than others.

P.S. Don't forget the go two layers down. Not only do you need to vote on articles, you need to vote on which voters get more say, and then back up one more level and vote on which voters for the voters with more say get more say. But don't stop there, go back another level.

stackexchange.com (or at least the parts I'm familiar with, such as stackoverflow.com) works largely because the questions asked have answers that tend to be objectively right or wrong and because most of those who vote are very knowledgeable. Participants get scores based on how well they answer questions (although how well is the judgment of other participants). If someone says "this computer code will do that" it's easy to test whether they are right or wrong.

The model doesn't really carry over to this forum.

Research shows that those who answer questions with a great deal of confidence tend to be the most believed, but that confidence in predictions doesn't correlate well with accuracy (often quite the opposite).

Sscritic - sorry, you're right, there's no weighting of votes there. What I meant was something like, "you would think that's a problem, but it turns out it's fine. Look here --- it just works." But I should have just said that.

I agree with Richard that it depends on the format. Many of the threads here are based on straightforward questions, where voting could be useful, but many others are open-ended discussions, where voting doesn't make sense.

I do think voting on threads could be useful, maybe just a another metric to display, like number of views, number of replies. Moderators could be given a separately displayed vote, which could possibly be extended to users with sufficiently high reputation.

I also think it works fine as is.