Should there be a thanks button in PI?

Cianos

I was thinking today that having a thanks feature in PI may give readers the wrong impression of where the true sentiment of the thread lies. I guess it applies to all threads, but with PI it is always going to be a little more serious for the OP especially.

I think it's the small sample size of participants that can give the impression that one post is backed by "everyone" and another isn't. If a post gets 5 thanks, it can make it seem that it's the most valid point in the thread. But that post may have gotten the most thanks for a variety of other somewhat random reasons, such as who happened to be reading PI that day. If the post was made on a different day, maybe it would have only got 1 thanks whereas another post getting 4 thanks would seem the most valid point.

It can be comparable to reliable surveys. In a good survey you need the participation of many people to give the feedback some weight. Then when the results come in (in the form of Thanks in this case), you can be confident that it is a fair representation of the real average opinion. But in the case of PI, only the presence or lack of one or two Thanks can swing the impression one would get on how other people view whatever the issue is.

Dohnny Jepp

PI is a strictly moderated forum as it needs to be, so "thanks whores" don't really ventrue into it ( not without feeling the wrath of thaed anyway:P).

So with that in mind the people receiving thanks are doing so for their helpful information and not their witty comments.

In PI, I thank posts which include the points I myself would iterate to the OP.
It saves the +1's and also as you said may help the OP in seeing which suggestions are the most supported which I see as a very good thing as opposed to a bad thing.

Cianos

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

In PI, I thank posts which include the points I myself would iterate to the OP.
It saves the +1's and also as you said may help the OP in seeing which suggestions are the most supported which I see as a very good thing as opposed to a bad thing.

Well this is my point. The suggestions that get the most support will not always be those that should be getting the most support. This is because there is a small amount of participants rewarding their thanks. Meaning that it really comes down to the actions of only a very small amount of readers to give the impression of one suggestion having more support than another.

Dohnny Jepp

No the complete oposite actually. They are getting the most support as the majority agree its the best course of action. Why else would people thank the post? So instead of having 8 similar posts in the thread there is one with 7 thanks.

There is no thanks whoring in PI, so there is no alternative motive in thanking someone other than supporting their suggestions.

I think the thanks feature is more useful in PI then many other fora, that being said I do understand where you're coming from, bad advice to senstive issues can be extrememly dangerous. The thing is PI is probably the best moderated forum and unhelpful suggestions get removed before they could gain thanks (not that they would be thanked)

Hank_Jones

I think it is a good feature to have there.
If I see a post which I think is helpful to the OP I am going to thank it,
I do this in hope that the person who posted it will come back again and help others.

I feel it is a feature that will allow good posters to know whether people feel they are giving good advice.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Zaph

Cianos wrote: »

I think it's the small sample size of participants that can give the impression that one post is backed by "everyone" and another isn't. If a post gets 5 thanks, it can make it seem that it's the most valid point in the thread. But that post may have gotten the most thanks for a variety of other somewhat random reasons, such as who happened to be reading PI that day. If the post was made on a different day, maybe it would have only got 1 thanks whereas another post getting 4 thanks would seem the most valid point.

You could argue that point for any forum. For example, if today I visited AH and thanked a post there and didn't visit it again for a week, would that make my thanks any less valid? People can only thank what they read, and while some people may stick to a couple of forums, many jump around in a random manner and so it's hit and miss what forums they visit and what posts they read, so it doesn't just apply to PI.

Cianos wrote: »

It can be comparable to reliable surveys. In a good survey you need the participation of many people to give the feedback some weight. Then when the results come in (in the form of Thanks in this case), you can be confident that it is a fair representation of the real average opinion. But in the case of PI, only the presence or lack of one or two Thanks can swing the impression one would get on how other people view whatever the issue is.

You're making the assumption that PI doesn't get much traffic, whereas the opposite is true. It's not uncommon to see 50+ registered users viewing at any one time, far more than you'll see in a lot of forums. I think that PI posters/readers are a bit more judicious in their thanking of posts than in some other forums because of the serious nature of the forum, and that's why there are relatively few thanks. For example, I've just looked at two current threads, one with over 1,000 views, which has a total of 4 thanks between 2 posts. The other has over 1,300 views and there's just one single thanks in the whole thread.

So far I have to say that it hasn't really caused any issues for us in PI, and where someone posts something smart-arsed that gets a lot of thanks you'll usually find that the post will be deleted pretty quickly.

Cianos

I'm not talking about the problems of thanks whoring, because as has been pointed out that isn't a problem in PI. I'm talking about the impact a few anomalous Thanks can have on the significance of particular pieces of advice.

To give a very basic and fictitious example, if one poster says "You should ring the guards", and there happens to be a number of viewers who agree with him, that post might receive, say, 10 thanks (10 being a small number compared to 1000+ views). But if the correct advice against calling the guards was in another post that more carefully examined the situation, it may not receive half the amount of thanks and as a result the knee-jerk post is somehow given more significance than it deserves, because on that day for whatever reason, there was an anomalous number of viewers who agreed with it's advice.

Basically, the less Thanks given, the more likely it is that the 'wrong' advice will be supported. And I'm not talking about good advice versus bad advice, I'm just talking about not letting the best advice be disguised because it received less thanks than a contradicting post.

Nevyn

and who decides what the best advice is?

pickarooney

Thaedydal wrote: »

and who decides what the best advice is?

The OP, hopefully. I'd hate to think that someone would make a life-altering decision based on the number of thanks under a post. But then again...

Nevyn

Then again we can't protect people from being idiots or making mistakes.

Overheal

Thaedydal wrote: »

Then again we can't protect people from being idiots or making mistakes.

Unfortunately that isn't enough apparently to say we should be allowed to offer medically related advice. For example, I cannot tell someone with a sleeping problem to try Melatonin. Despite the fact they are responsible for their own rationale.