I Wish There Was. "Like" Button

[Leesbro63]

This would make the best posts easier to find.

[xerty24]

It would also let people agree or support a good response without posting just to agree and clutter the discussion. Similarly, when people give poor advice, a dislike counter could warn others from trusting that response as much.

[rustymutt]

Yeah, and we could have reviews of post.

[rob]

A personal "like" acting like a book mark would be a nice idea but a public rating system.... um..... Some of us are old enough to remember when m* did that and... well... it didn't go well :-/

[sscritic]

And then we could post comments on the posts.

Oh wait, that's what we do. Never mind.

[centrifuge41]

This would make the best posts easier to find.

And a neg, and a neutral button, just like Fatwallet's forums?

It's funny. On Fatwallet, people joke about "repped" - giving reputation points, a feature they don't have that other boards do have. I guess a lot of people want the cool ideas they see on other boards.

[word]

bookmarks don't cut it?

edit: missed the word best

[Beantown85]

It would also let people agree or support a good response without posting just to agree and clutter the discussion.

+1

[exigent]

It would also let people agree or support a good response without posting just to agree and clutter the discussion.

+1

Case in point... 8)

[Beantown85]

It would also let people agree or support a good response without posting just to agree and clutter the discussion.

+1

Case in point... 8)

[natureexplorer]

I somehow would not change a thing. It's the best discussion board out there. Why risk it? Any improvement would likely be incremental, but the potential unforeseeable downside is huge.

[CABob]

I somehow would not change a thing. It's the best discussion board out there. Why risk it? Any improvement would likely be incremental, but the potential unforeseeable downside is huge.

+1
I also remember M* ratings (including negative ratings) and as far as I am concerned it was a disaster. Can anyone say unintended consequences?
I do participate in other boards that have "recommendation" points and I sometimes use them, but, have noticed that they seem to be used in a number of ways.
Some use them as a thank you for a response to a question.
Some use them as recognition for a particularly useful or helpful response.
Some use them to recognize a response that they agree with.
Some use them for popularity points.
All in all since one only guesses what the points mean they end up being of questionable benefit.
If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

[EmergDoc]

I somehow would not change a thing. It's the best discussion board out there. Why risk it? Any improvement would likely be incremental, but the potential unforeseeable downside is huge.

+1
I also remember M* ratings (including negative ratings) and as far as I am concerned it was a disaster. Can anyone say unintended consequences?
I do participate in other boards that have "recommendation" points and I sometimes use them, but, have noticed that they seem to be used in a number of ways.
Some use them as a thank you for a response to a question.
Some use them as recognition for a particularly useful or helpful response.
Some use them to recognize a response that they agree with.
Some use them for popularity points.
All in all since one only guesses what the points mean they end up being of questionable benefit.
If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

That was my first thought. What a disaster that was on morningstar

[dratkinson]

I foresee the unintended consequences of a "like" button being greater than any benefit.

I don't mind being a novice investor. I don't minds saying so. I don't mind supplying basic information for an OP and being corrected to 100% by a senior investor. But if the ultimate result were some negative stigma attached to any portion of my character as a result of my attempts to help, I'd probably just remain quiet and let the senior investors handle all of the workload for the OPs.

How can the results be otherwise for others?

[bradshaw1965]

Karma systems have become so ingrained in forums that it becomes more noticeable when one doesn't use one. I know I reach for an approval button after reading an insightful post. My guess is Morningstar was early in using the system, implemented it badly, and there was already discord in the forum regulars.

[natureexplorer]

Karma systems have become so ingrained in forums that it becomes more noticeable when one doesn't use one. I know I reach for an approval button after reading an insightful post. My guess is Morningstar was early in using the system, implemented it badly, and there was already discord in the forum regulars.

Maybe we can also get a button to approve approvals. Because how else do I know how insightful an approval was?

What are examples of great forums with approval/like buttons that make them so great?

[nisiprius]

I think it would be poisonous. In principle it sounds like a good idea, but that's only because one imagines that the totals would be the result of random, unbiased samples of honest expressions of opinion.

The problem is that the technical mechanism for counting votes is trivially easy to implement, but the human problem of designing a helpful polling system on the Internet seems to be all but impossible.

In real life, it's irresistibly appealing to game the system. And on the Internet, it's just too easy to organize mobs of angry people wielding votes.

Within this very forum we've had people comment that a Boglehead's article in a venue with "like/dislike" scores was getting unfavorable comments and low scores from people opposed to his views, and suggesting that forum members might want to vote. My recollection is that the article promptly went from something like a 3-out-of-5-star score to 4-1/2-out-of-5.

My recollection is that I yielded to temptation and helped vote the article up. Shame on me.

P. S. By the way, the internal workings of Wikipedia are very interesting and complicated, and include the formation of a sort of internal web of trust. But voting is usually avoided, and although it is not formal policy, the essay Polls are evil is worth reading.

[bradshaw1965]

What are examples of great forums with approval/like buttons that make them so great?

It's not the system that makes it great, but the community. As an example, I'm a fan of Hacker News, http://news.ycombinator.com/. A mostly tech centric forum for geeks. It covers a lot of the same ground as slashdot.org. They both have karma systems, I find Hacker News useful and Slashdot unbearable.

I'm not necessarily advocating for a karma system on Bogleheads. I think its origin and the problems with karma on Morningstar make it a tough sell. I think in time though it will be so central to most forums that it will seem like an anachronism not to have one.

[gkaplan]

I disapprove this approval proposal.

[Sidney]

Many of the best posts fall in the category I call "tough love". They would probably not be rated best in a popularity contest. Rating systems can have many unintended consequences, as we found out with CDOs.

[3CT_Paddler]

I think it would create situations that would easily divide the board and create animosity.

[tfb]

This would make the best posts easier to find.

And a neg, and a neutral button, just like Fatwallet's forums?

It works very well on fatwallet.com.

[natureexplorer]

This would make the best posts easier to find.

And a neg, and a neutral button, just like Fatwallet's forums?

It works very well on fatwallet.com.

And which forum do you like more - fatwallet or bogleheads?

[tfb]

And which forum do you like more - fatwallet or bogleheads?

For the topics most suitable on fatwallet, fatwallet. They keep the same topic going on the same thread. They encourage searching and reading before posting duplicates. Editable-by-all quick summary offers a time-saving at-a-glance view. You can mark a thread as a favorite and watch a list of favorites. Posters making a positive contribution are rewarded with green by the community.

For topics most suitable on Bogleheads, Bogleheads. We have more knowledgeable posters. But in terms of board technology that makes it easier for members, we are far behind fatwallet. It helps that fatwallet makes a profit and can invest the necessary admin time for those improvements.

[natureexplorer]

And which forum do you like more - fatwallet or bogleheads?

For the topics most suitable on fatwallet, fatwallet. They keep the same topic going on the same thread. They encourage searching and reading before posting duplicates. Editable-by-all quick summary offers a time-saving at-a-glance view. You can mark a thread as a favorite and watch a list of favorites. Posters making a positive contribution are rewarded with green by the community.

For topics most suitable on Bogleheads, Bogleheads. We have more knowledgeable posters. But in terms of board technology that makes it easier for members, we are far behind fatwallet. It helps that fatwallet makes a profit and can invest the necessary admin time for those improvements.

It sounds like any more sophisticated board software would increase the admin burden thereby increasing the need to monetize this site. So to me it sounds like it is more of a question whether one wants this site to be full-fledged commercial like fatwallet or to try to minimize the need for monetization. The more buttons you have, the more can break.

[tfb]

It sounds like any more sophisticated board software would increase the admin burden thereby increasing the need to monetize this site. So to me it sounds like it is more of a question whether one wants this site to be full-fledged commercial like fatwallet or to try to minimize the need for monetization. The more buttons you have, the more can break.

It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. I think we sometimes take "non-commercial" too far. Everybody posting at Fatwallet knows FatWallet makes money. Few stop reading or posting because of that. It's because FatWallet invests in the members (sharing cashback) and in the board (staff time). When you do a good job, people don't mind you make money from your effort.

Forbes is for-profit. forbes.com has ads. Steve Forbes is a billionaire. Yet Mel and Laura write for Forbes. We often see links to their columns here. More people going to Forbes will make more money for Forbes. But it's OK, because Mel and Laura write good articles and more people should read their articles.

CBS MoneyWatch is for-profit. Larry and Allan Roth have their blogs there. We often see links to their blog posts here. More people going to CBS MoneyWatch will make more money for CBS MoneyWatch. But it's OK, because Larry and Allan write good blog posts and more people should read their blog posts.

early-retirement.org forums have ads. It's still a good board. I see many here also post on Early Retirement.

When you do a good job, having some ads to cover the cost or make a profit is not a problem. The investment on board technology is largely one-time. Some come free in a newer version of the free board software. We haven't upgraded because there's no money to pay our admins' time. If we run one small ad for three months, it may very well bring in enough to pay contract labor for the upgrades. When monetization is a means to a good end, I don't think anybody would object.

[Ted Valentine]

No. Popularity does not always = good.

In my opinion all this does is appeal to the lowest common denominator. Bogleheads is about depth of information, no who can make the quickest snappy reply.

[Alex Frakt]

Open ratings systems are too easy to game. A post or thread typically gets very few responses so a small group of dedicated people (or 1 person with multiple accounts) has the ability to hijack any ratings system to fit their particular outlook. We've already experienced attempted "raids" by groups of insurance agents, insurance and software company shills, and commissioned financial products salesmen. Since they have to post to have any effect, we've been able to keep them at bay. I don't want to give them any tools that lets them influence threads here while staying in the shadows. And then there are the homegrown issues. For example, any political posts would receive multiple ratings that would serve only to highlight items that should not be here at all.

[xerty24]

Open ratings systems are too easy to game. A post or thread typically gets very few responses so a small group of dedicated people (or 1 person with multiple accounts) has the ability to hijack any ratings system to fit their particular outlook.

If you look at posts in the forums here, you'll see that there are 50-100 views for every post in a typical thread. There is a large community here of educated readers who choose not to add to these conversations, either because it would clutter the thread or they would not normally take the time to compose a reply. I think this would overwhelm any attempts at manipulation.

Don't be too tied to the poor history of the M* ratings. They can work very well if done properly, and I think are a big benefit to a site, both in terms of increased usefulness (easy of reading, highlighting valuable replies or discussions) and they serve as a reward mechanism for posters to contribute (i.e when their good replies receive positive feedback from the community).

On FatWallet for example, you can rate both threads and individual posts, and in addition, you can see the list of all users who have rated something either + or -. IMHO, this is a good way to set things up and provides some transparency/accountability so you can see who as rated a given post which way (and can value their opinions appropriately). There are occasional attempts to vote against things using extra identities there too, but those fail since the community is strong and the accountability features reveal the immature parties' actions for what they are.

[bottlecap]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Fallible]

Open ratings systems are too easy to game. A post or thread typically gets very few responses so a small group of dedicated people (or 1 person with multiple accounts) has the ability to hijack any ratings system to fit their particular outlook. We've already experienced attempted "raids" by groups of insurance agents, insurance and software company shills, and commissioned financial products salesmen. Since they have to post to have any effect, we've been able to keep them at bay. I don't want to give them any tools that lets them influence threads here while staying in the shadows. And then there are the homegrown issues. For example, any political posts would receive multiple ratings that would serve only to highlight items that should not be here at all.

I think until, if ever, so-called "best" responses are free of, or just less susceptible to gaming, they simply can't be trusted, which is why I no longer read them on other sites.

[Alex Frakt]

On FatWallet for example, you can rate both threads and individual posts, and in addition, you can see the list of all users who have rated something either + or -.

I belong to a forum that does this and is much more similar to this forum in terms of length and depth of threads than what is seen on FatWallet. What has happened is that most people never click, presumably because it's not anonymous, and many of those who do have ended up in sort of mutual admiration societies where they automatically uprate each other's posts. Maybe FatWallet's typical thread structure negates or masks this problem, but I believe it could be a real issue here.

[amh]

It seems to me that the Wiki already exists as a mechanism of distilling the "best" content of the forums (and Wiki articles can provide references to helpful forum threads, which eases the search issue).

Please don't Facebook-ify this site.

[nutinsider]

I wish there was one too, I would be a jerk and change my name on here to "Nobody" so everytime I" like" something it would say "Nobody Likes this"

[EmergDoc]

I wish there was one too, I would be a jerk and change my name on here to "Nobody" so everytime I" like" something it would say "Nobody Likes this"

Nobody likes this. But somebody did LOL.

[VictoriaF]

I wish there was one too, I would be a jerk and change my name on here to "Nobody" so everytime I" like" something it would say "Nobody Likes this"

Furthermore, anybody liking you would be "liking nobody."

Victoria

[sscritic]

This thread is currently three posts behind the other thread about liking. If you like this thread, post here and let's help the underdog overtake that other thread.

[VictoriaF]

This thread is currently three posts behind the other thread about liking. If you like this thread, post here and let's help the underdog overtake that other thread.

I like your message.

Victoria

[sscritic]

This thread is currently three posts behind the other thread about liking. If you like this thread, post here and let's help the underdog overtake that other thread.

I like your message.

Victoria

+$

[sscritic]

It's now a tie. Is this what gaming the system means?

[VictoriaF]

It's now a tie. Is this what gaming the system means?

You and I are a flash mob of two.

Victoria

[LadyGeek]

Game over, topic locked. Please redirect responses to the later thread: Why not add a "like" button to Boglehead posts?