New Test Feature: Helpful Posts! Thanks for your help!

[Monorail Man]

Hey all in MiceChatLand, we are testing a new feature: Helpful Posts!

During the test period, you can now rank posts based on their helpfulness to the community, and the thread at hand. Currently, this feature works in the Celebrate the Parks section and all those subforums.

Note that this system is currently unrelated to the reputation system, so the details and this will not replace giving reputation for members for good posts. So if you see a great post out there, give them both a rank up, and some positive reputation.

Just look for the text titled: Did you find this post helpful? - then just click the Red or Green button. Members can't see how you vote, however there will be info in your profile for how helpful you are to MiceChat!

Get out there and thank/rate those members who do a great job!

Don't Be A Fuddy Duddy Notice: This system is smart, so if you try to go and downvote more than 10 posts from the same member, it will block your votes on that member. If you that twice, it fully locks you out of the system. The goal is this system is to keep everyone on track in threads, and help point out our best members.

[Mommyto4]

Just look for the text titled: Did you find this post helpful? - then just click the Red or Green button. Members can't see how you vote, however there will be info in your profile for how helpful you are to MiceChat!

so in actuality we are being tracked right ? to me most posts are helpful in the disney section, whats this info used for?

[Mr Wiggins]

Questions...

- Will we be able to see the results of the votes we make ourselves in our profile? (I've made several votes and don't see anything in my profile.)

- If you upvote more than 10 posts from the same member, what happens? (If you can give a member unlimited upvotes but limited downvotes, it will skew the data.)

- If you accidentally click on the wrong button, how can you undo it?

- What's the overall purpose of this? (I.e., what is MiceChat administration hoping to learn? What will this data be used for?)

The goal is this system is to keep everyone on track in threads, and help point out our best members.

...point out our "best" members? "Best" by what definition?

- Point them out to whom? (MiceChat administration? The community at large? The member himself? ...for what purpose?)

- What is meant by "keeping everyone on track in threads"? (Do you mean keeping posters from going off topic? How does voting green or red keep a thread on topic?)


...just askin'.

[DisneyIPresume]

Don't Be A Fuddy Duddy Notice: This system is smart, so if you try to go and downvote more than 10 posts from the same member, it will block your votes on that member. If you that twice, it fully locks you out of the system. The goal is this system is to keep everyone on track in threads, and help point out our best members.

Is there a time limit in regards to this feature? Suppose this feature is around for a few years. It might wind up being difficult to personally keep track of how many times you are downvoting particular members. There may be a lot of specific member's posts that you had downvoted and then several months go by and you have totally forgotten about it. Will the system still lock this out after a considerable time has lapsed?

Hope I'm making sense.

[Monorail Man]

Questions. Okay we'll start with Mr Wiggins:

-People can see how many times you voted, and what people are voting for you. Go to your profile, and then the Stats. tab.

-It's based on a percentage until a use gets locked out. If more than 70% of a members votes are downvotes, they get a warning. If they go over 90% downvotes, they will be locked out or reset (at a Mods discression).

-Right now, you can't reverse. However, if you vote the wrong way, we can go in and clear it out during this test phase.

-Our long term goals are to use this to replace the reputation system, or become a self-filtering system for posts. However, none of this is implemented yet. Right now it's just to see what our membership (and viewers - because Guests get to vote as well) likes and dislikes for posts.

-Best as in whatever people thinks helps the boards. A great post with lots of information, vote it up. An off topic post with no value, vote it down. Unlike the reputation system, there are no specific rules for voting. Just like and dislike.

-If this takes off the way that we want it to, we hope we can use it for a 'top posts' and other types of features that embrace the idea of the community - and not just simple stats. like Replies or Views.

-Right now, there's no motifivation, or to stay on topic. However, we're hoping a system that points out the 'best posts' in a thread will be motivation to stay on topic. There's a good reason why this is only in our Disney and Park sections, and if this takes off the way we want it to - we're hoping with a few conditions for a post, we'll get better more on-topic and less attacking posts as a whole.

DIP, it's based on a percentage of votes as a whole, combined with member directness. If you strictly vote a member down (just out of spite for example), and more than 90% of the votes are downvotes (after your first 5 votes for a member), it will toss a red flag for us, and we'll look at it.

[Mr Wiggins]

Thx MM.

[mycroft16]

I like this system... but I think it might be useful to incorporate an aspect of the reputation system, namely having to put in a reason. It doesn't have to be long, even just 60 characters. "Off topic." "attacking person" "well though out"

Having to include a reason for your choice would discourage (and expose) abuse of the system much more easily. It doesn't have to show these comments in the stats, but they should be available for review by mods at the very least. Though it is nice to see the comments being made in the current rep system.

Just a thought. I love the idea of the helpful system and hope it does take off. Thanks MM!

[techskip]

Just a quick comment... "I love what you've done with the place"... seems to be a lot of new and "test" features and I am enjoying them.

One thought that does concern me is the ability for Guests to downvote. I feel that this could quickly skew the numbers specifically because they are not logged in and therefore not held accountable. In that respect I think that our Guests should be limited to "up" votes, or have their "down" votes actually be used as a report/flag feature. I realize the importance and validity of outside opinions (as in mass public not logged in) I am simply concerned that it may skew the numbers in a negative way.

[Dustysage]

I think that our Guests should be limited to "up" votes, or have their "down" votes actually be used as a report/flag feature. I realize the importance and validity of outside opinions (as in mass public not logged in) I am simply concerned that it may skew the numbers in a negative way.

Excellent point. This is why we are "Testing", to figure out how to best implement a feature like this (if we decide to keep it at all).

Most large sites now use some form of post voting. It is one of the few ways that you can attempt to maintain civility on a board this size. There is simply no way for a Moderator to read all posts and we are so busy chasing reported posts that we are trying out a few potential solutions.

Thanks for your thoughts and help everyone. Hopefully we'll be able to tweak this system for long term use.

-Dusty

[Mr Wiggins]

^^ Seconding the suggestions of mycroft & techskip above.

Suggestion to MM, Dusty & all: you might want run the test longer than a week... at least thru one of our famous 15-page knock-down-mix'emups to give more posters time to try it out. But I do think that over time it could have a calming effect on our catfights -- sort of like neutron rods in a reactor core.

[HighLeveller]

-It's based on a percentage until a use gets locked out. If more than 70% of a members votes are downvotes, they get a warning. If they go over 90% downvotes, they will be locked out or reset (at a Mods discression).

Why punish people outright? It's better to give a certain number of downvotes to "spend" over a set time period, and a larger amount for upvotes (simply because upvotes are less prone to abuse). Plus a stricter limtation over a short time for downvotes: for example at most 10 over the past 30 days, and maybe three over the past two days. Requiring a member to spend at least as many upvotes as downvotes to prevent downvote-bombing would be a good idea too.

I also suggest limiting how many downvotes a single post can get over a set time period, to prevent ganging-up. (I've seen a case or two with the Reputation where a member seems to have been ganged up on over one or two posts.)

-Our long term goals are to use this to replace the reputation system, or become a self-filtering system for posts. However, none of this is implemented yet. Right now it's just to see what our membership (and viewers - because Guests get to vote as well) likes and dislikes for posts.

This is a good idea. Instead of throwing someone in the Litter Box, in addition to an option to filter posts below a settable value (like many sites already do), you could have an option to automatically (with a prompt) Ignore-List those who have consistently negative upvote/downvote rankings. A member who's invisible to almost everyone else will probably eventually take a hint and stop being disruptive. For forum-policy violations, the existing Report Post function should be adequate.

In this case, any cumulative upvote/downvote ranking should only be over a certain time frame, with older votes factoring in less than recent ones, so it wears off like current Reputation does.

[AliKzam]

Question: if someone gets a lot of down votes, will moderators judge the posts to see if they are worthy, or will you allow the system to do it?
I'll give you an example of my own. During the last DCA discussion thread, I changed the topic from the boardwalk to the Little Mermaid attraction, and some people got really upset by it and said I was going off-topic. In reality, it was perfectly within the realm of the thread. If people could down vote something like that, even though I said nothing offensive, would I be blocked out?

[aashee]

I'm already a little concerned. For example: There is a thread on the Lilly taking out some railing to make it ADA compliant. It was a very helpful and important thread. 2 of 4 people said that it was NOT helpful. There thread was fine it was the information the people didn't like so they voted NO.

This is what concerns me but I'm sure the Mods can see that/

[Monorail Man]

I'm already a little concerned. For example: There is a thread on the Lilly taking out some railing to make it ADA compliant. It was a very helpful and important thread. 2 of 4 people said that it was NOT helpful. There thread was fine it was the information the people didn't like so they voted NO.

As the system stands, this is exactly what we want to see. We're not filtering the content in any way, but instead allowing members to rate it. If there happens to be 2 people that don't feel the topic is helpful to the community, that's fine. However, one should be rating based on how helpful it is to MiceChat, and not if they just disagree with the poster. However, we understand that people will always vote if they 'like it or not' (some of this is still true for Reputation), so I see this system as a way to filter it out if people 'like it or not' based on how many upvotes and overall reaction to a thread.

In reality, it was perfectly within the realm of the thread. If people could down vote something like that, even though I said nothing offensive, would I be blocked out?

Our eventual goal is to only use the filtering system for very bad posts. However, none of this is set in stone, and this is only a trial period. I'm more interested in what our community thinks is helpful and what isn't. If this system goes beyond what it is now, we will use the data and see what would consitute a 'bad post'. 'Bad Posts' would never be deleted, but simply hidden by default, with a link to see them.

In this case, any cumulative upvote/downvote ranking should only be over a certain time frame, with older votes factoring in less than recent ones, so it wears off like current Reputation does.

This is a fantastic point. However, at the current time, were only using it to judge what our members think is helpful to the community. As it stands, you have to give 90% bad votes in order to be flagged by the system. This means that even with 20 votes, 18 of them have to be 'not helpful' to trip the alarm. We want members to both point out what's helpful, and not helpful. So this is mainly to alert us to members who only use the system to attack other members/downvote specific topics - rather than use the system to help us indicate what is helpful and what isn't.

I'll be the first to admit that the Reputation system is very confusing with lots of rules. I'm hoping that this system will be very simple, and we'll only be alerted to people that use it for 'bad' vs. 'good'.

Thanks for the input everyone!

[aashee]

As the system stands, this is exactly what we want to see. We're not filtering the content in any way, but instead allowing members to rate it. If there happens to be 2 people that don't feel the topic is helpful to the community, that's fine. However, one should be rating based on how helpful it is to MiceChat, and not if they just disagree with the poster. However, we understand that people will always vote if they 'like it or not' (some of this is still true for Reputation), so I see this system as a way to filter it out if people 'like it or not' based on how many upvotes and overall reaction to a thread.

Thanks for the reply Hastin. I know you probably have all these things thought out, I'd just hate to see people being dinged for bringing up thought provoking topics. I love that "Different look at Disney" aspect the most.