Designated "Expert" Forum Users?

[EEVblog]

Besides, the statistic has been available for anyone to see - and has been for as long as I can remember.  Just click on a member's Username and it's right there on the landing page of their profile.

There's quite a difference of degree between the statistic being available for anyone to see upon seeking it out, and seeing it every time one reads a post.

As I've consistently pointed out, the "thanked" count isn't a helpful statistic. At best, it partitions people into "either helpful or affable or both" and "not (either helpful or affable or both)". At worst it tells you nothing. The only time I've found it informative is as a loose indication when I've encountered someone I haven't noticed before, and they are either being a dick, apparently trolling, or trying to start a fight, to determine if they are just having a bad day or if it's likely to be normal behaviour for them

It might be nice if the count shows up in the particular thread only.
e.g. If someones post in this thread was Thanked 5 times, the count would show up under the username as 5, otherwise it doesn't show at all?

[ataradov]

It is not clear to me what is the actual problem this is supposed to solve.

The idea seems to be to let new users know who to trust. But let's say someone completely new to the forum sees that someone was thanked 123 times. Is this a lot? What is the baseline? How would they know? May be even the most useless troll accounts were thanked 120 times and 123 is just in the noise.

I just went and checked a few accounts that I would not trust, and they have 100s of thanks.

[Zero999]

Besides, the statistic has been available for anyone to see - and has been for as long as I can remember.  Just click on a member's Username and it's right there on the landing page of their profile.

There's quite a difference of degree between the statistic being available for anyone to see upon seeking it out, and seeing it every time one reads a post.

As I've consistently pointed out, the "thanked" count isn't a helpful statistic. At best, it partitions people into "either helpful or affable or both" and "not (either helpful or affable or both)". At worst it tells you nothing. The only time I've found it informative is as a loose indication when I've encountered someone I haven't noticed before, and they are either being a dick, apparently trolling, or trying to start a fight, to determine if they are just having a bad day or if it's likely to be normal behaviour for them

It might be nice if the count shows up in the particular thread only.
e.g. If someones post in this thread was Thanked 5 times, the count would show up under the username as 5, otherwise it doesn't show at all?

According to my poll public opinion is mostly against the thanked counter in every post, but it's not as unpopular as the expert idea.

Doing it for individual threads is another idea, but I'd be in favour of just scrapping the counter altogether, whether it's in the profile, or posts. The thank you system should be kept, but only displayed for individual posts.

[wilfred]

According to my poll public opinion is mostly against the thanked counter in every post, but it's not as unpopular as the expert idea.

Doing it for individual threads is another idea, but I'd be in favour of just scrapping the counter altogether, whether it's in the profile, or posts. The thank you system should be kept, but only displayed for individual posts.

The thanks function still has a useful purpose. It is easily apparent when someone makes a worthwhile considered post for the benefit of other forum members. And saying "thanks for the input and effort" can be inferred by the recipient.

And where Ataradov observes "I just went and checked a few accounts that I would not trust, and they have 100s of thanks." it is as easily inferred that the highly opinionated relative few tend to accumulate thanks in the diminished form of "I agree with this side of the argument".

Keep the thanks counter because it does serve to reward those worthy of it.

[Zero999]

According to my poll public opinion is mostly against the thanked counter in every post, but it's not as unpopular as the expert idea.

Doing it for individual threads is another idea, but I'd be in favour of just scrapping the counter altogether, whether it's in the profile, or posts. The thank you system should be kept, but only displayed for individual posts.

The thanks function still has a useful purpose. It is easily apparent when someone makes a worthwhile considered post for the benefit of other forum members. And saying "thanks for the input and effort" can be inferred by the recipient.

And where Ataradov observes "I just went and checked a few accounts that I would not trust, and they have 100s of thanks." it is as easily inferred that the highly opinionated relative few tend to accumulate thanks in the diminished form of "I agree with this side of the argument".

Keep the thanks counter because it does serve to reward those worthy of it.

You seem to have missed my point. I didn't say get rid of the thank you system. It should be kept. Whether the counters should remain or go, is a separate debate.

[tggzzz]

Besides, the statistic has been available for anyone to see - and has been for as long as I can remember.  Just click on a member's Username and it's right there on the landing page of their profile.

There's quite a difference of degree between the statistic being available for anyone to see upon seeking it out, and seeing it every time one reads a post.

As I've consistently pointed out, the "thanked" count isn't a helpful statistic. At best, it partitions people into "either helpful or affable or both" and "not (either helpful or affable or both)". At worst it tells you nothing. The only time I've found it informative is as a loose indication when I've encountered someone I haven't noticed before, and they are either being a dick, apparently trolling, or trying to start a fight, to determine if they are just having a bad day or if it's likely to be normal behaviour for them

It might be nice if the count shows up in the particular thread only.
e.g. If someones post in this thread was Thanked 5 times, the count would show up under the username as 5, otherwise it doesn't show at all?

According to my poll public opinion is mostly against the thanked counter in every post, but it's not as unpopular as the expert idea.

Doing it for individual threads is another idea, but I'd be in favour of just scrapping the counter altogether, whether it's in the profile, or posts. The thank you system should be kept, but only displayed for individual posts.

It seems that your personal message "90% of those by trollz" is now lacking context, as is my similar statement "but the count is meaningless without context!". I've copied them so they aren't lost when I (we?) delete them.

+1 to Dave for trying something. and +2 for not having so much ego that he isn't prepared to abandon an idea.

[Zero999]

Besides, the statistic has been available for anyone to see - and has been for as long as I can remember.  Just click on a member's Username and it's right there on the landing page of their profile.

There's quite a difference of degree between the statistic being available for anyone to see upon seeking it out, and seeing it every time one reads a post.

As I've consistently pointed out, the "thanked" count isn't a helpful statistic. At best, it partitions people into "either helpful or affable or both" and "not (either helpful or affable or both)". At worst it tells you nothing. The only time I've found it informative is as a loose indication when I've encountered someone I haven't noticed before, and they are either being a dick, apparently trolling, or trying to start a fight, to determine if they are just having a bad day or if it's likely to be normal behaviour for them

It might be nice if the count shows up in the particular thread only.
e.g. If someones post in this thread was Thanked 5 times, the count would show up under the username as 5, otherwise it doesn't show at all?

According to my poll public opinion is mostly against the thanked counter in every post, but it's not as unpopular as the expert idea.

Doing it for individual threads is another idea, but I'd be in favour of just scrapping the counter altogether, whether it's in the profile, or posts. The thank you system should be kept, but only displayed for individual posts.

It seems that your personal message "90% of those by trollz" is now lacking context, as is my similar statement "but the count is meaningless without context!". I've copied them so they aren't lost when I (we?) delete them.

+1 to Dave for trying something. and +2 for not having so much ego that he isn't prepared to abandon an idea.

Agreed. His post about removing it in the other thread got thanked by me.

[emece67]

.

[wilfred]

According to my poll public opinion is mostly against the thanked counter in every post, but it's not as unpopular as the expert idea.

Doing it for individual threads is another idea, but I'd be in favour of just scrapping the counter altogether, whether it's in the profile, or posts. The thank you system should be kept, but only displayed for individual posts.

The thanks function still has a useful purpose. It is easily apparent when someone makes a worthwhile considered post for the benefit of other forum members. And saying "thanks for the input and effort" can be inferred by the recipient.

And where Ataradov observes "I just went and checked a few accounts that I would not trust, and they have 100s of thanks." it is as easily inferred that the highly opinionated relative few tend to accumulate thanks in the diminished form of "I agree with this side of the argument".

Keep the thanks counter because it does serve to reward those worthy of it.

You seem to have missed my point. I didn't say get rid of the thank you system. It should be kept. Whether the counters should remain or go, is a separate debate.

I agree it does read as if I missed your point. But I agree with what you say. I think the thanks counter has massively reduced value and my response was made in the certain belief that it would be deleted entirely (and it has been) and that there is not the slightest chance of any alternative such as you suggest ever being implemented.  Even if it was on a per post basis only it would still get treated as "I agree" in the context of the thread it is in. And those threads are where high thanks counts tend to accumulate as observed by Ataradov.  With whom I also agree.

The thanks counter as it was could have served the function if only for those who post to be helpful provided it was ignored for any other purpose.

Regardless, the point is moot.

[Brumby]

A very pertinent comment:

It is not clear to me what is the actual problem this is supposed to solve.

Three things that should always be kept in mind:
 1. What is the problem that is being addressed?  Being very clear about this is essential.
For any given solution:
 2. How effective is it in achieving the desired outcome?
 3. What negative consequences could ensue from its implementation?

If all three of these are not clearly defined (and the outcome favourable) then it would be foolish to make a change ... IMHO.

[Brumby]

I still do not understand why some insist on qualifying posters when what is wanted to qualify are posts.

So ... how would you qualify posts?

[Zero999]

According to my poll public opinion is mostly against the thanked counter in every post, but it's not as unpopular as the expert idea.

Doing it for individual threads is another idea, but I'd be in favour of just scrapping the counter altogether, whether it's in the profile, or posts. The thank you system should be kept, but only displayed for individual posts.

The thanks function still has a useful purpose. It is easily apparent when someone makes a worthwhile considered post for the benefit of other forum members. And saying "thanks for the input and effort" can be inferred by the recipient.

And where Ataradov observes "I just went and checked a few accounts that I would not trust, and they have 100s of thanks." it is as easily inferred that the highly opinionated relative few tend to accumulate thanks in the diminished form of "I agree with this side of the argument".

Keep the thanks counter because it does serve to reward those worthy of it.

You seem to have missed my point. I didn't say get rid of the thank you system. It should be kept. Whether the counters should remain or go, is a separate debate.

I agree it does read as if I missed your point. But I agree with what you say. I think the thanks counter has massively reduced value and my response was made in the certain belief that it would be deleted entirely (and it has been) and that there is not the slightest chance of any alternative such as you suggest ever being implemented.  Even if it was on a per post basis only it would still get treated as "I agree" in the context of the thread it is in. And those threads are where high thanks counts tend to accumulate as observed by Ataradov.  With whom I also agree.

The thanks counter as it was could have served the function if only for those who post to be helpful provided it was ignored for any other purpose.

Regardless, the point is moot.

All I'm proposing is to remove the thanked counter from the profile, to stop people from collecting thanks by responding to users such as treez, who abuse it, or sign up multiple accounts so they can thank each other. The ability to thank posts and "The following users thanked this post: Peter, Paul and Mary" message under the appropriate posts should remain.

[Brumby]

All I'm proposing is to remove the thanked counter from the profile, to stop people from collecting thanks by responding to users such as treez, who abuse it, or sign up multiple accounts so they can thank each other.

I'm ambivalent about the counter, but I'm curious about the reason for this suggestion.  Since the current situation has been the way it is for years, I am led to ask: How has this been a problem?

[wilfred]

All I'm proposing is to remove the thanked counter from the profile, to stop people from collecting thanks by responding to users such as treez, who abuse it, or sign up multiple accounts so they can thank each other.

I'm ambivalent about the counter, but I'm curious about the reason for this suggestion.  Since the current situation has been the way it is for years, I am led to ask: How has this been a problem?

It really hasn't as far as I am concerned. But as Zero999 says and with which I agree it does tend to get used as a way for some to collect shiny prizes as if it were a game. But if you ignore that, I thought it still had value for those who used it in the spirit originally intended.

Are we better off without it? I suppose that depends on how irritated you found using it as a way to promote tribalism in controversial discussions. I didn't find that a problem and lament the loss of the facility to say thanks without an explicit post. Which IIRC it was to minimise multiple people doing just that.

But here I am in this thread posting to say I agree so you can't deny the irony. 

[EEVblog]

Are we better off without it? I suppose that depends on how irritated you found using it as a way to promote tribalism in controversial discussions. I didn't find that a problem and lament the loss of the facility to say thanks without an explicit post. Which IIRC it was to minimise multiple people doing just that.

The forum would be worse off without it.
When it was first introduced almost everyone liked the idea of having the ability to Thank a post. It was a nice way to say you appreciated the effort that went into the post, or agree with it etc, without pollutiing the thread with a copy of the post and a  +1  etc
Essentially it rewards good and often extensive technical posts. A little deserving dopamine hit for the author.
The majority though didn't like the Thanks count being shown under the username on every post for the reasons discussed, and the new poll in the other thread still shows that's the case.
Almost everyone seems ok wiht having the count burried away in the user profile. That's something I can also disable, but no one has really asked for that.

[tggzzz]

Are we better off without it? I suppose that depends on how irritated you found using it as a way to promote tribalism in controversial discussions. I didn't find that a problem and lament the loss of the facility to say thanks without an explicit post. Which IIRC it was to minimise multiple people doing just that.

The forum would be worse off without it.
When it was first introduced almost everyone liked the idea of having the ability to Thank a post. It was a nice way to say you appreciated the effort that went into the post, or agree with it etc, without pollutiing the thread with a copy of the post and a  +1  etc
Essentially it rewards good and often extensive technical posts. A little deserving dopamine hit for the author.
The majority though didn't like the Thanks count being shown under the username on every post for the reasons discussed, and the new poll in the other thread still shows that's the case.
Almost everyone seems ok wiht having the count burried away in the user profile. That's something I can also disable, but no one has really asked for that.

I'm content with that.

Being able to indicate that a post was helpful (without many "+1"s) is a benefit.

If someone wants to go and play numerology with the thanks count, then they can do that without it becoming a shiny trinket/prize visible to all. No problem.

[magic]

It's easy to be smug and dismissive wrt to addiction behaviors when it isn't you who collected 90% of your thanks from treez...

[jpanhalt]

Almost everyone seems ok wiht having the count burried away in the user profile. That's something I can also disable, but no one has really asked for that.

Actually, I and some others have suggested that no cumulative record be kept of thanks.  Thanking someone is an immediate courtesy to the poster.  Why make it a score?

Consider a courteous driver who lets another driver into a line of traffic -- say a driver exiting a fueling station onto a side street.  Most of the times, the driver who is let in waves a thanks.  At least that happens in the US.  Some borish people don't do that.  In either case, no one keeps score.

[PlainName]

Actually, I and some others have suggested that no cumulative record be kept of thanks.  Thanking someone is an immediate courtesy to the poster.

In an ideal world it would be just like that, but in practice you post and move on, then perhaps next week someone reads your post and thinks it worthy of thanks. You never see it. Periodically I have a browse through my thanked posts list and see what people appreciated. Sometimes it's surprising, and sometimes I see that someone I helped (but maybe forgot about) said thanks and I never noticed.

Summary: I like the list, the in-post thanks is useful but the count itself is pretty meaningless.

While the count was being displayed all over, I did a quick calculation for various users of post-to-thanks ratio. Typically it was in the range 3 to 6 but some posters who I expected to score well didn't. I can only think they don't have many cat photos.

[Zero999]

Actually, I and some others have suggested that no cumulative record be kept of thanks.  Thanking someone is an immediate courtesy to the poster.

In an ideal world it would be just like that, but in practice you post and move on, then perhaps next week someone reads your post and thinks it worthy of thanks. You never see it. Periodically I have a browse through my thanked posts list and see what people appreciated. Sometimes it's surprising, and sometimes I see that someone I helped (but maybe forgot about) said thanks and I never noticed.

Summary: I like the list, the in-post thanks is useful but the count itself is pretty meaningless.

I think a list of posts thanked is a good compromise. It doesn't have to be exhaustive, the last 25 or so posts would be helpful.

While the count was being displayed all over, I did a quick calculation for various users of post-to-thanks ratio. Typically it was in the range 3 to 6 but some posters who I expected to score well didn't. I can only think they don't have many cat photos.

Or they just responded to those who don't use the thanked button loads.

Are we better off without it? I suppose that depends on how irritated you found using it as a way to promote tribalism in controversial discussions. I didn't find that a problem and lament the loss of the facility to say thanks without an explicit post. Which IIRC it was to minimise multiple people doing just that.

The forum would be worse off without it.
When it was first introduced almost everyone liked the idea of having the ability to Thank a post. It was a nice way to say you appreciated the effort that went into the post, or agree with it etc, without pollutiing the thread with a copy of the post and a  +1  etc
Essentially it rewards good and often extensive technical posts. A little deserving dopamine hit for the author.
The majority though didn't like the Thanks count being shown under the username on every post for the reasons discussed, and the new poll in the other thread still shows that's the case.
Almost everyone seems ok wiht having the count burried away in the user profile. That's something I can also disable, but no one has really asked for that.

I don't believe anyone is talking about removing the thanks button. The consensus seems to be that it should remain.

Almost everyone seems ok wiht having the count burried away in the user profile. That's something I can also disable, but no one has really asked for that.

Actually, I and some others have suggested that no cumulative record be kept of thanks.  Thanking someone is an immediate courtesy to the poster.  Why make it a score?

Consider a courteous driver who lets another driver into a line of traffic -- say a driver exiting a fueling station onto a side street.  Most of the times, the driver who is let in waves a thanks.  At least that happens in the US.  Some borish people don't do that.  In either case, no one keeps score.

I agree. I think the further we can move away from scoring points, the better. One of the things I like about this forum is the lack of competition and egos. The fact that the moderators are mostly impartial is also good.

Electro-tech-online was completely the opposite of this place. The karma system was badly abused. What was worse is, one could leave messages. Abusive messages often accompanied negative karma and the moderators didn't do anything about it. On the other hand the over-moderated the forum and displayed bias. Lazy students and free energy zealots would sign up, troll and provoke long standing members. When they got told to kindly bugger off, the long standing member would get banned, leaving the troll to annoy others. I could never understand why saying a free energy zealot was ignorant on the form resulted in an infraction, yet leaving bad karma, with a much more abusive message with swearing was tolerated, by the moderators. Many left. I'm glad this place isn't like that.

[Labrat101]

I am thinking that in "Theory" this would be a great idea .. But as with all what I have seen so far Theory and practice are totally distorted  .
Some of the so called Experts are really good at copy & Paste and have not got a clue . &  could out smart anyone with a twisted tongue.
On the other hand there are some real born Genuineness here and they stay in the shadows .
The only way to Find real experts would be to Prove it with some Certification's

 

[MK14]

The forum would be worse off without it.
When it was first introduced almost everyone liked the idea of having the ability to Thank a post. It was a nice way to say you appreciated the effort that went into the post, or agree with it etc, without pollutiing the thread with a copy of the post and a  +1  etc
Essentially it rewards good and often extensive technical posts. A little deserving dopamine hit for the author.
The majority though didn't like the Thanks count being shown under the username on every post for the reasons discussed, and the new poll in the other thread still shows that's the case.
Almost everyone seems ok wiht having the count burried away in the user profile. That's something I can also disable, but no one has really asked for that.

I typically use the total thanks received, to alert me when less recent posts have been given thanks and/or have suddenly become 'viral' and got a number of thanks from different users.

Thanks for removing the permanent display of the thanks counter. It means that most people can forget about the thanks total, most of the time. If anyone gets curious, they can look at the total thanks score. But otherwise, it is now somewhat easily ignored, especially the thanks counts of other users, as it is a bit too much of a nuisance, to check on it now.

I suppose it is a bit like getting the feedback/(compensation) loop just right on an op-amp/amp. Get it wrong and it can oscillate (like being too important/addictive/Dopamine-giving), hiding it again, arguably stabilizes/balances the situation.

tl;dr
Thanks for re-hiding/burying the thanks totals.

[emece67]

.

[madires]

The only way to Find real experts would be to Prove it with some Certification's

Like the Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert certificate? I've seen people who are re-evaluated every few years to keep their certifaction status fail at simple tasks. A certificate only confirms that someone has passed a specific test - nothing more.

[Sal Ammoniac]

I liked the old Usenet system, where most groups weren’t moderated and discussions ebbed and flowed organically. Unfortunately, spam eventually made the whole thing unusable and we’re now left with web-based forums like this one.